LHR Breathtest. Update: Captain jailed [Archive]

Jack The Lad

2nd Jul 2004, 22:30

Dogma.....'standby the man, innocent until guilty?.?

In your defence, I'm sure what you meant to say was, 'reserve your judgement, until proven guilty'?

That would have made a lot more sense and would be a balanced view. Our justice system allows for the opportunity that an individual has the right to defend himself and the prosecution must be able to deliver the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he has actually commited such a crime.

The above human right ensures that even villains are not punished until such time as the evidence proves the facts; it does not mean that such villains are innocent until such time, as the evidence often proves they were guilty at the time they commited the crime.

It serves to protect the few innocent that might appear to be guilty, from punishment unless the evidence can prove they did commit the crime.

The system also allows for some that are actually guilty, to escape punishment because the weight of evidence is insufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty. Would that make such a person innocent? Yes, in the courts eyes, but not in reality!

Pilots are human beings and as such, just as prone to break the law as any other individual, but I guess there would be a tendency on a forum such as this to assume that we are all above such naughtiness!

See the difference?

ILS 119.5

2nd Jul 2004, 22:44

Job is now ****, don't wanna do it any more. I can earn far more from other ventures.. The thread regarding " how good is an airline pilot's job", I am not replying to, but it is ****.

Jack The Lad

2nd Jul 2004, 22:49

ILS

I agree, it's not what it used to be, but neither is driving a car whilst intoxicated any more. 40 years ago, public perception of getting tanked up and weaving oneself home without hitting a lampost was considered good sport.

Times have changed.

The job now is not what it used to be, but that is not because pilots can no longer arrive for work still bearing the worst from an excess the evening before.

ILS 119.5

3rd Jul 2004, 16:25

JTL
Thanks for the comments. The drinking to me is not the problem as I don't drink to excess. The commercial pressures due to bad man management concern me. Our industry is run by accountants who do not understand the way we work. They are pressurising us to make errors or to make us work with extra pressure. At the moment our industry is unsafe due to the bad management. I cannot forsee myself staying in the job for more than one more year. May fly g4/5's or lr45's for fun.

desert_knight

4th Jul 2004, 18:27

and just who should run an airline? God forbid you say a Pilot!

Times have changed, airlines need to make money if they want to keep going.......just like every other business, accountants help achieve that.

You're right times have changed........for just about everybody, it's a tough old - competitive- World!

Anyway, what's that got to do with drinking too near to duty time?

ILS 119.5

4th Jul 2004, 21:53

there would be nothing wrong with a pilot running an airline, it would be far better than an accountant. Let's look a at NATS for example. Who runs it, accountants or ex operational staff? If you want to run a professional industry then let the professionals run it. The financial people have to accept it and the sales people have to get on their arses and generate more income to pay for it. Look at airports, who continually reduce pay rises, not because they can't afford it but because the "sales" staff cannot generate the income. In modern industry if the sales are not up then the company goes down. If the aviation industry does not come to terms with this idea then it will fail.
Comments please

Sorry nothing to do with drinking before duty time, but wanted to get my halfpennyworth in.

doublesix

5th Jul 2004, 22:27

ILS 119.5. We all feel pressure from our bosses in all walks of life but you just have to get on with the job to the best of your ability. It concerns me that you feel that you are 'pressurised to make errors' in your line of work, if you are a pilot that is?

flystudent

5th Jul 2004, 23:00

desert_knight.

My thoughts on your post above regarding what has that got to do with drinking. Perhaps some have a drink to relieve themselves from the unsafe practices they are being forced to carry out by the people squeezing their nads (so to speak). I'm sure you know many people who have a shocking day and go home and perhaps drink a little too much such that you can identify them at work the next day.

So say for example it was a decision making manager and a pilot (sober as a judge) calls in cant go something is tech etc etc and gets told by the suffering manager (cause of his heavy night, but it's okay in an office !!), "Look I don't need this Sh*t, just fly the plane home". He/she perhaps didn't really want this problem given the drum beat in the head they are dealing with, but perhaps that decision was fatal. A whole other thread there why is the alcohol limit lower higher for maintenance that in itself is surely crazy (the justification as dont need a quicker reaction time is tosh, it is a high pressure job too), perhaps it should be carried right through to everyone even at their desk punching excel spreadsheets (extreme)

Hey I am just relaying what I think the link is/could be in the above posts. I agree it's cut throat nowadays but with more and more cost cutting measures coming in from "accountants" some of whom perhaps don't understand the impact of their decisions then we are getting close to some terrible incidents. This Forum is covered with examples of such practises due to cost cutting. Personally and unfortunately I think there are some terrible accidents due on the horizon with these "sharp practices".

Regards & No offence

Flying Lawyer

6th Jul 2004, 08:37

Jack the Lad

ILS 119.5 was right. In this country, as in many others, a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved Guilty.
You're free to adopt another approach if you wish, but that's the law.

Tudor Owen

fire wall

6th Jul 2004, 11:03

.....and as such he is free to appear at a later date!
Where lies the problem?

Arkroyal

6th Jul 2004, 11:15

ILS 119.5 was right. In this country, as in many others, a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved Guilty. For now anyway, until 'Adolph' Blunkett manges to reverse it:confused:

bjcc

6th Jul 2004, 16:32

Well, Jack the lad has a point in a way, people who are really guilty do get aquitted on a regular basis (the man with the shotgun, Flying Lawyer???)

However from expereince, those that are guilty and manage to get off on a technicality, such as the CPS changing the charge to the wrong one, or because a piece of paper is wrongly writen, usualy come again.........

In this case, unless somethings changed, its still not clear if he's been chaged and bailed to appear at court, or if he's been bailed to return to Heathrow nick...It makes little difference I suppose, excpt if he's been bailed to appear in Court, then all the elements needed to prove the offence are there.....

Jack The Lad

6th Jul 2004, 19:18

Flying Lawyer, I wouldn't presume to argue the law with you or any other of your esteemed colleagues, but I rather think you missed my drift.

I was commenting on Dogma's choice of words, 'standby the man, innocent until guilty'. The missing word 'presumed' makes a whole heap of difference and that was my point. Someone may be presumed innocent but that doesn't mean they are necessarily. Furthermore, if the weight of evidence is insufficient to prove that I robbed a bank at gunpoint, I may be innocent in the eyes of the law, but if I did it, I would still be as guilty as hell!

Not trying to adopt a different approach, but ....

whatever!

Cosmo

6th Jul 2004, 19:35

In dubio pro reo I think is what you're referring to.

Electric Sky

9th Sep 2004, 20:26

Further developments following the incident at LHR in July of the Royal Brunei pilot that was suspected of having alcohol in his system prior to operating a flight.

BBC News

Pilot charged with drink offence

A pilot has been charged with preparing to fly a plane while over the legal alcohol limit.

Scotland Yard said Briton Charles Nicholls, 53, who lives in Brunei, was charged under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

A Royal Brunei Airlines flight to Brunei from Heathrow airport, in west London, was delayed by two hours in July when a pilot was breathalysed.

Mr Nicholls is due to appear before Uxbridge Magistrates next Wednesday.

Royal Brunei Airlines said in a statement that Mr Nicholls had been sacked following an internal disciplinary inquiry.

It said the inquiry found he had been "in contravention of both Royal Brunei Airlines' Employment Regulations and also the Company Operational Procedures".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3642138.stm

ES ;)

SKI

9th Sep 2004, 21:47

Good luck next wednesday, we(well a few of us have been there in the past in the 80's I have!) and got away with it ! times have changed! for ever!

Remember your 40th!!

TheOddOne

3rd Nov 2004, 07:10

From the BBC:

He is due to appear at Isleworth Crown Court on 7 December for a plea and directions hearing.

The Odd One

Flying Lawyer

6th Dec 2004, 17:49

The Royal Brunei captain appeared at Isleworth Crown Court today.

The Charge:
”On the 1st day of July at London Heathrow Airport carried out an activity ancillary to an aviation function, namely flight preparation while acting as captain of Royal Brunei flight number B198 from London Heathrow to Dubai while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit”, contrary to contrary to Section 93(1) of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. He pleaded Guilty.

The Facts
A BAA airport security employee, John James (48) thought he could smell alcohol when the crew passed through Control Post 4 at Heathrow at about 08:15 for an 09:40 departure. He believed it came from the Captain but wasn’t sure so moved to the other end of the x-ray machine and pretended to help the Captain take his bags from the machine so he could get closer to him and smell his breath.
Having done so, he felt certain his suspicion was correct - but said nothing to the captain or any of the crew.
As soon as the crew had gone, James telephoned Aviance (RBA’s handling agents) and the BAA duty manager to report the captain. It seems that BAA called the police.

Aviance contacted RBA and an RBA Passenger Traffic Agent went to the aircraft to speak to the Captain. She described him as obviously shocked by the allegation, and saw no signs she would normally associate with someone who’d been drinking and couldn’t smell alcohol on his breath. When, at the captain’s suggestion, she smelled his breath closely she detected a slight smell of alcohol, but it was feint and not enough to cause her any concern.
The F/O saw nothing about the captain or his demeanour which caused him to be concerned and they continued with their pre-flight duties.

At about 09:15, police officers boarded the aircraft and required him to take a breath-test. The breath-test showed an ‘Air Fail’. He was arrested, taken from the aircraft and transported to Heathrow police station. (In handcuffs ‘to prevent escape’ :rolleyes: )

At the police station, a blood sample was taken which, when subsequently analysed, revealed 125 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The prescribed limit for aviation is 20 mg. (The limit for drivers in the UK is 80mg.)

Sentence: Six months imprisonment.
When passing sentence, the Judge said he accepted that the captain had already suffered by losing his job and had probably lost his career as it was unlikely he would obtain employment as a pilot again - despite a long, successful and previously unblemished record. However, he was entrusted with the safety of the crew, passengers and people on the ground who may have been affected if anything had gone wrong. (The captain was the handling pilot for that sector.)
The Judge accepted that he had not had a drink for just over 12 hours before the blood sample was taken, but said it was clear he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol on the previous day given the high alcohol content in his blood when the sample was taken.
He pointed out that the alcohol level was more than six times the limit for pilots and more than 1.5 times the limit for drivers. He took into account the hardship the pilot would suffer as a result of the incident but “the message must go out” that if pilots are convicted with such a high level, a prison sentence was inevitable.
He said such behaviour was highly irresponsible and reckless and those who are reckless in such circumstances risk being a danger to the public and to themselves. He was satisfied the offence demanded a custodial sentence and the very least sentence he could pass given the high reading was six months imprisonment.

Commentary

(1) The captain believed a 12 hour gap between bottle and throttle would be sufficient. He was surprised when he failed the breath-test, and shocked when the blood analysis revealed he was not only over the prescribed limit, but more than six times over. In many circumstances 12 hours might be long enough, but a number of factors can play a part:

how much you’ve had to drink before you stop;
your metabolism - people lose alcohol at different rates
whether you’ve eaten - the captain had no breakfast the previous day, only a fajita (wrap) from a local supermarket at lunchtime, no dinner and no breakfast the day he reported for duty.There was nothing to stop him leaving the aircraft and reporting sick when the handling agent told him he’d been reported. He was sure he had nothing to fear and was on board when the police arrived some time later.
There are several lessons to be learned from all the above points.

(2) This wasn’t mentioned in court because it wasn’t relevant but I understand the captain had on a previous occasion remonstrated with the security staff for making inappropriate comments about young female members of his CC. He didn’t notice that James was paying particular attention to him.

(3) This doesn’t apply to my case but, in the Manchester case, the pilot was apparently reported by the taxi driver.
Be careful what you say about the previous night when strangers can hear – it might be misinterpreted.

(4) Again, this doesn’t apply to my case because of the high alcohol level, but the magistrates in the Manchester case sent it to be dealt with by a Judge at the Crown Court even though the pilot’s alcohol level was quite low.
Given that pilot also received a sentence of six months imprisonment, it looks (from very limited data so far) as though the courts will take a very serious view of these offences. (I wasn’t involved in the Manchester case and know only what I’ve read in the Press and on PPRuNe.)

(5) The police officers claimed the captain’s breath smelt strongly of alcohol, and one even claimed his eyes were glazed. Fortunately, we were able to rely upon two witnesses who were able to rebut that allegation.
If you find yourself under suspicion, make sure someone other than the police officers can give an objective description of your condition.

(6) As someone pointed out on the Manchester thread, prisons are awful places full of many unpleasant people. He’s right – they are not the ‘holiday camps’ some people appear to believe. Those who’ve lived a life of crime get used to the occasional prison sentence.
If (as in this case) you’re 54 and never been in trouble in your life, the horror of being sent to prison shouldn’t be under-estimated. It’s not worth taking a chance for the sake of a few drinks.

Note:

I asked the captain’s permission to post the facts of his case on PPRuNe.

He gave it willingly in the hope that his experience might prevent other pilots from making the same mistakes as he did, and from suffering the same consequences.

Tudor Owen

hobie

6th Dec 2004, 18:22

A ruined career .... a ruined life ..... its so sad

FL, I've mentioned it before "24 hours Alchohol free" before every trip is the only solution ..... I hope this theory is correct

.... the thought occured to me, would the skipper in question have been ok, given another 12 hours to reduce the 125 mg level
(i.e. a total of 24 hrs) before departure

Gin Slinger

6th Dec 2004, 18:33

FL - one of the most thought provoking posts I've ever read. Thank you for posting it and thank you to Capt concerned for allowing others to learn from his experience.

It seems to me there are so many variables to consider that other than becoming teetotal, some sort of personal breathalyser would be a good form of insurance policy in this climate of zero tolerance.

sandy helmet

6th Dec 2004, 18:48

You can pick one up at a Target or Wal-Mart.

Everyone knows that pilots and alcohol go together and the present day climate is steadily eroding that wonderful relationship.

I agree that the best way out is total avoidance, but with all the variables involved in drinking perhaps for those who must a personal breathalyser should be standard part of your kit.

Why flush your career down the toilet for the sake of a night out.

bjcc

6th Dec 2004, 19:27

Some advice...

Don't buy the blow upp bag ones! Apart from being completly unreliable they are only marked (they arn't calibrated) for the Road Traffic Act, and guessing a 1/4 the distance below the line is not reliable.

If anyones going to buy an electronic breath test machine, Lion make the ones we used whn I was a Police officer, if that helps.

slingsby

6th Dec 2004, 21:15

Elaine PM me, I know it is hard but I offer you my support.

Rocco in Budapest

6th Dec 2004, 23:04

srjumbo,

Wasn´t the captain 6 times over the limit???!!!! What´s the security guards name got anything to do with it? Who knows what could have happened to the flight had it been allowed to continue. God fobid an accident involving deaths whereby we would all be singing a different tune. Glad to see that the system is working!

Heliport

7th Dec 2004, 06:22

PA News report Jailed Pilot Was Six Times over Flying Limit

An airline captain was due to fly a Boeing 767 from Heathrow with 200 passengers on board while more than six times the legal limit was jailed today.

Charles Nicholls, 54, a captain with Royal Brunei Airways, accepted that he had drunk a “large amount” the day before but claimed he had observed the pilots’ rule of “12 hours from bottle to throttle”.
Nicholls, of Admiralty Way, Eastbourne, East Sussex, admitted a charge of carrying out flight preparations as captain of Royal Brunei Airways flight B198, when the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit.

Jailing him for six months at Isleworth Crown Court, Judge Richard McGregor-Johnson told him: “Your blood-alcohol level was over six times the limit for flying. It was over one-and-a-half times the limit for driving a car let alone flying a passenger aircraft.
“You were entrusted with the safety of the crew, passengers and, of course, people on the ground who may have been affected if anything had gone wrong.
“It is plain you had consumed a large quantity of alcohol on the previous day. That is highly irresponsible and reckless. Whilst I accept you might not have realised you were over the limit, you ought to have thought about it when it was mentioned to you before the police arrived.
“You are an intelligent man and you must know whether it is possible to be clear to fly after a 12-hour period.
“Those who are reckless in such circumstances risk being a danger to the public and to themselves and I am satisfied this demands a custodial sentence.”

As Nicholls headed for the plane to start safety checks, a security officer noticed that he smelled strongly of alcohol, said prosecutor Simon Connolly. Police were informed.
“Upon entering the aircraft, he went to the flight deck and started the routine flight safety checks. The first officer did the outside checks and joined the captain for briefing for take-off. Passengers had begun to board by the time the police arrived,” said counsel.

A breath test gave a reading of 69mcg of alcohol – the flying limit is 9mg, much stricter than the 35mcg limit for driving.
A blood test following the captain’s arrest gave a reading of 125mcg of alcohol, compared with the flying limit of 20mcg.

The ex-RAF navigator, who obtained a commercial pilot’s licence in the US and became a captain within four years of joining Brunei Airways, told police he had about four pints the night before and stopped drinking at 9.30pm.
He thought by the time he would be flying any alcohol would have passed through his system, said counsel.

But Tudor Owen, defending, said Captain Nicholls failed to take into account that he had been drinking heavily at lunchtime, before meeting friends and drinking again in the evening.
“He observed the pilot’s mantra of 12 hours from bottle to throttle, but failed to take into account the time it would take for what he had at lunchtime to work through his system. And he did not eat at all that day."
"He did not suspect he would be over the limit.”
Mr Owen pointed out that when he was first spoken to by a handling agent “he could have reported sick and simply left. He didn’t because he had no reason to suspect he was over the limit”.

Nicholls was fired instantly by the airline and had little prospect of getting any work, let alone flying again at his age, said counsel.
“He asks me to apologise to the court – he has already to the company – he is desperately sorry for what happened. He is now professionally ruined”.

The flight was bound for Dubai.

ou Trek dronkie

7th Dec 2004, 06:38

srjumbo

So you are clearly in favour of driving a Boeing when you are well over the limit ? I would dearly like to know who you fly for in that case so I can take the obvious precautions.

John James is not a snitch, but a highly responsible person, IMHO.

oTd

flash8

7th Dec 2004, 07:29

Totally agree - a quiet word in the guys ear - voicing concerns - would have been the decent thing to do

"snitch" comes to mind (flames welcome)

Hope the Brunei guy gets his life back together - other have in similar circumstances - wish him all the best

srjumbo

7th Dec 2004, 07:44

Rocco in Budapest get a life! I stand by my original posting, JOHN JAMES Heathrow security guard, probably an aspiring PPL with no other qualifications with a chip on his shoulder towards all flight crew, needs to be mentioned.
There are ways and means of dealing with these scenarios but to be underhanded and tell the police first without challenging the pilot first IMHO JOHN JAMES' name needs to be repeated. I'm not for one minute saying that people should fly over the limit but there are ways of dealing with these things.
Remember, were it not for JOHN JAMES someone who believed themselves to be innocent wouldn't be behind bars this morning!

amanoffewwords

7th Dec 2004, 08:09

someone who believed themselves to be innocent

Why did he plead guilty then?

grrowler

7th Dec 2004, 08:30

amanoffewwords,

With the evidence (ie breath test), there was no choice but to plead guilty, that's how the court system works.

The point is that he presumably believed he was operating legally, so there was no intent.

Having got myself into some sticky situations myself completely unwittingly, its sobering :hmm: to consider how easily one's life can be turned upside down.

And for those who think James handled the matter correctly, how would any of you feel if you were reported by a fellow crew member for an operational matter, for example, without them voicing their concern to you first? He handled it poorly and is quite simply a snitch.:yuk:

airborne_artist

7th Dec 2004, 08:47

grrowler

Just to play Devil's Advocate for the moment - how would James have felt if he'd let the matter lie, the Brunei flight had suffered something catastrophic, Nicholls subsequently breath/blood tested and his condition officially judged to be contributory to/the cause?

OK, so James would have kept quiet, as otherwise he'd have been (morally) on a dereliction of duty charge, but who would then have been at fault? Nicholls, the First Officer, James? Perhaps all three?

Danny

7th Dec 2004, 08:51

It's one thing debating the rights and wrongs of the way the security man handled the situation but I won't have anyone try and use this forum to instigate any kind of vigilante action against him. Srjumbo's post has been removed as it had nothing to do with this issue except as self gratification for some worrisome need for his own expression of anger.

Maybe the security man should have taken the Captain aside and given him an opportunity to resolve any percieved problem but he was not trained in any way to handle that kind of situation. We all know, despite our reservations about the effectiveness of the cosmetic security that is in place, the people who man it are not paid, heaven forbid, to use their initiative. They have their SOP's to detect and confiscate pointy objects and that's it. He wasn't the one that called the police either. He called the Airline's handling agent and the airport management. It was one of them who called the police.

As was mentioned, the Captain had every opportunity to leave the flight deck and call in sick when he was informed about what was happening. Whilst his mitigation that he honestly didn't believe that he was over the limit was mentioned, it would appear that he really should have known better and the judge, in my opinion, was correct when he pointed that out. You don't have to be an expert on human anatomy and biological functions to know that regular, heavy drinking on an empty stomach isn't a clever thing to do at any time. To then be informed that you have been reported to the police because someone had smelled alcohol on your breath requires even less imagination as to the possible consequences.

This captain has paid a very heavy price for his lack of common sense. There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case. I was under the impression that prison was meant to be a form of rehabilitation rather than exclusively as punishment. I would have thought that this man has paid a very high price already by losing his job and the associated publicity which is likely to prevent him from ever working as a pilot again, especially at his age. I think that most of us are aware of the consequences of being under the influence, whatever the arbitrary limit, when reporting for duty. Is the threat of a custodial sentence likely to make you any more aware or likely to abstain from alcohol?

The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.

This case, as well as other recent ones, only serves to highlight that there is a problem with alcohol consumption by aircrew who are unable to determine the residual amounts left in their system. Whilst we can agree that there have been no alcohol related accidents for many years, do we know how many crew members are reporting for duty with enough alcohol in their system that would fail a test? Perhaps there needs to be a study to see how widespread the problem is... or isn't.

Does anyone know if there are any reports of the number of aircrew who have failed tests in the US where testing is mandatory? I am specifically looking for aircrew only and not all workers in the industry. From what I remember, anecdotally, the numbers are very small indeed. With the reputation of the British culture of alcohol consumption and the highlighting of this case, perhaps those who have a habit of being fuzzy headed after a night out downroute should indeed invest in a testing device. I am fairly sure that some of you would be surprised at the results. Perhaps as surprised as the Royal Brunei Captain was when he got his result.

You have a choice. Use it.

Unwell_Raptor

7th Dec 2004, 09:35

It isn't that the Manchester sentence was a harsh one, but that the Heathrow one was on the low side.

In both cases the judge listened to the advocate's mitigation and made his decision. Plenty of people thought that the latest case would attract 12 months or even more.

What is clear is that both sentences were intended to be deterrent, and no pilot or engineer should be in any doubt about what will happen in any future cases. With the limit set as low as 20mg in blood, 12 hours' abstinence is no longer safe if you have drunk more than a small amount.

ELAC

7th Dec 2004, 10:14

One thing that seems to have been missing from this discussion is the appropriateness of the 20mcg limit.

It's fair enough to expect the law to enforce a standard that errs to the side of safety, but is there not a point where that standard has been pushed too far to the side of caution?

The actual scientific FAA/NASA studies of the effects of different levels impairment on flying abilities that I have read indicated that there was no measurable decrease in judgement or handling skill found among participants with 20 and 40 mcg blood alcohol contents. In fact, the participants when intoxicated to those levels showed a slight, but measurable, improvement versus their scores when sober. A decrease in performance only became noticable when the participants were tested at the 80 mcg level.

The reasonable conclusion from these studies is that the point where blood alcohol content begins to affect aviating skill lies somewhere between 40 and 80 mcg. Given this, unless there is significant evidence to the contrary, a 40 mcg limit would seem appropriate.

Granted, this pilot's actual blood alcohol content of 125 mcg was well in excess of even 40 mcg, but given the terrible consequences that confront any pilot accused (let alone found guilty) of exceeding the preescribed legal limit, should we not be asking hard questions about the basis for that limit?

As things stand a pilot's career can be ruined on the basis of a blood alcohol level well below that at which any measurable impairment can be detected, but a pilot whose abilities have been significantly eroded by fatigue induced by inadequate rest and duty regulations is considered fit to fly, and may be subject to penalty if he doesn't.

There's something wrong with that.

ELAC

Capt.KAOS

7th Dec 2004, 10:46

Assuming the security man's motive was genuine concern for flight safety, he could easily have told the captain about his suspicions and warned him he'd report him if he went airside. In that case one may assume that the Captains drinking pattern maybe repeated a next time. It appears that he was sure he was under the limit because of the 12 hours and he will think that again the next time.

If a car driver is stopped by the police during an alcohol traffic control and he is over the limit, he will be charged accordingly and rightly so. With all due respect, Heliport, will you say the same for this case?

Belgian Chap

7th Dec 2004, 11:37

What's the cost of a relyable breathalyser?

Having one aboard could IMHO be an appropriate tool to avoid lots of trouble.
On any suspicion, be it from fellow crew members or third parties, once could be able to perform a 'self-test' to convince either oneself of a 'no - go' or relieve others of their concern of someone having had too much to drink before reporting for duty. Thus avoiding ruined carreers, possible jail sentences and above all maintaining the highest safety standards.
It might also come in handy to face potential troublemaking passengers if cabin crew believe said passenger is under influence. A discrete breathtest is at the least a strong and indisputable argument in the process of telling someone to behave and be good for the rest of the flight, explaining the possible consequences.

A small price to pay, for safety?

Rgds,
BC

bjcc

7th Dec 2004, 13:12

Perhaps before people express thier wish to hang the security guard they should consider a few important points.

BAA security are not allowed to use inititive, they react in a prescribed way to things. That means they call Police to all sorts of things that wouldn't normally justify it.

He would inform his supervisor who then would inform his, the message would eventualy get to the BAA's control Centre at heathrow, who would have, and ineed did call the Police. It isn't in BAA terms thier responsibility to take issue with a pilot, nor to give him advice, as many have rightly pointed out, they are not experts.

The pilot believed he was under the limit, who are the BAA to question that? They lack both the skills and the equiptment to do so.

I presume you would not expect the BAA to have a word in the ear of a driver who was about to get in his car when smelling of drink? Or to tell a shop lifter that they really shouldn't try to steal something. Why should they do so in the case of a pilot?

I can see why you regard the security guard as a 'snitch' but please consider that many of you are pilots and have called police to people on your aircraft who you claim to be drunk, not causing any danger to anyone, just drunk. You see no harm in that, and don't regard yourselves as 'snitches'. There is no difference in what the guard did to that action.

Something I really think should be mentioned is as follows:

I unit of alcohol = 1/2 pint

legal limit for driving is approx 2.5 units

therefore 1 unit would give a BAC(from a breath specien) reading of about 14

He gave a breath test sample (at time of arrest) of 69, equivilent to about 4.9 units. (2.5 pints)

alcohol leaves the avarage person at the rate of one unit an hour

he had 12 hours since the last drink. So you can presume that if he lost one unit per hour then he would have had to have at had about 12 units before he stopped drinking plus the 4.9 he had at the time he was arrested.

That makes a total of 17 units or the equivilent of 8 1/2 pints.

I am not going to try to take it back further to the lunch time, as its pointless but it does show how much he could well have had to drink.

cortilla

7th Dec 2004, 14:25

Just asking Mrs cortilla about this one (a doctor), and she says it takes 1 hour per unit for alcohol to leave the body, + 1 hour to the total (for an average person) for the body to start metabolising the alcohol (so if you take 1 unit of alcohol it will take 2 hours to metabolise and 3 hours for 2 units and so on)

As an aside the way i understand it, british law is a precedent law. So if a judge in a similar case at the same level or lower court has set a scentence of 6 months and that was the last case, then the scentencing judge would have to set the same scentence to remain consequent with the legal aspects. Only a higher court can reduce that scentence ie the court of appeal or the house of lords, but these will only look at cases on points of law, and not re examine the facts.

Airbubba

7th Dec 2004, 14:31

>>There was obviously no intent of criminal behaviour and I for one cannot understand the need for a custodial sentence in this case.<<

Flying drunk has been considered criminal behaviour for many years now in the U.S., it is a serious crime. Several pilots have done hard time and others would have but got off on legal technicalities like the Virgin pilot at KIAD.

>>The British, though not exclusively, seem to have a culture of heavy drinking. You only have to read many of the profiles of PPRuNe members to see the references to drinking. For some people it would appear that unless you are able to quaff several pints of beer or knock back 'chasers' of hard spirits then you are not worthy of being a part of their social group and therefore somehow inferior'. Strange that, especially from people who consider themselves to be professional aircrew with such huge responsibilities. I just don't understand how some supposedly intelligent people can consider alcohol intoxication to be in any way beneficial to their health or careers.<<

Yep, current attitudes toward binge drinking make it much less socially acceptable in the U.S. than perhaps in the UK.

If this guy tested drunk twelve hours after he quit drinking, then he has a problem on several levels. Whatever the personal issues, he should not be at the controls of an aircraft. The system worked in this case.

In the U.S., if you have an alcohol problem outside of duty time, under the Americans with Disabilities Act you basically can not be fired if you agree to rehab. However, if you report for duty and test over the limit, you don't have the full "get out of jail free card" from the ADA. The first things many accused crewmembers do (like the America West crew at MIA) is hire a lawyer, proclaim innocence and book into rehab just in case.

Unwell_Raptor

7th Dec 2004, 16:12

Please do not rely on any of the alcohol/blood/breath calculations that you see in this thread. It is not an exact science, and the intake required to get to say 20mg in blood (nb) has so many variables such as body weight, food consumption, type of drink, that there is no safe answer.

Parliament decided to set the limit for pilots at one-quarter that for drivers. I am sure that was not so much scientific as a rule of thumb, but consider what chance there is of BALPA making headlines "Pilots demand right to drink more before they fly".

Different jurisdictions express alcohol measurements in different ways. For the record, the limit in the UK to drive a car is:
35 in breath 80 in blood and 106 in urine. The exact units are different for each. For flying, divide by four.

If the Blessed Danny will excuse just this one commercial link in the interests of educating the readership, there is a cheap and cheerful alcohol meter at

http://tesco.com/electrical/search.aspx?Ntt=alcohol&VSI=9&Ntk=primary&Nty=1&Ntx=mode%2Bmatchall

I would not stake my career or my freedom on it, but it can at least give you an idea of where you are.

bjcc

7th Dec 2004, 16:25

Unwell Raptor

Thanks, I had just come back to add something along those lines.

My calculations are very very rough and only give an idea for the 'avarage' person (what ever that is)

The only reliable way is to buy a breath test machine and test twice, first to make sure you are under and the second to make sure you are 'going down' not up.

The ones we used to use cost around £700, or so we were charged if we lost one, if they are the same price or less then well worth buying I would think.

Mr Chips

7th Dec 2004, 16:58

I always find it quite incredible to see the reactions to "drunk Pilots" type threads. If you were to read through all the ones we have had, you could believe that all Pilots are saints, who only make on minor transgression ever and don't deserve to lose their jobs. To see people on this thread naming the security gurad, and labelling him "a snitch" for doing his job almost defies belief. There is a hint in Flying Lawyers post that there was some history bewteen the pilot concerend and security. I wonder what the Pilot's reaction would have been to being told that he was suspected of being over the limit - would it have had any effect?

In this case, let us please not lose sight of the fact that not only was this pilot over the limit set for flying, he was over the limit for driving a car. Regardless of what you may think of the aviaition limit, this man clearly had a realtively high level of alchohol in his bloodstream, and had obviously consumed rather a lot the day before - 12 hours is fairly irrelevant if you have drunk lots, especially on an empty stomach. Not, I would suggest, a sensible action.

probably an aspiring PPL with no other qualifications with a chip on his shoulder towards all flight crew,
Funny how anyone who does anything that may affect a professional pilot is always assumed to be "an aspiring PPL" :hmm:

Ttree Ttrimmer

7th Dec 2004, 22:20

The question of how we know when we are in excess of the current limit is an important one to me. As we are all regularly made aware, different people metabolise alcohol in different ways and there are many variables to go along with it, as have already been described. When you turn up to work how can you be sure that your body has processed all the alcohol it received at last in take? I hear some people answer, don't drink at all, but that takes away the right to choose and means that your days free of duty remain under the control of the company or licensing authority. To me this is unacceptable.

Currently, the first indication a pilot may have that he has exceeded prescribed limits is when the police board the aircraft and have adminstered their test. I understand that one carrier, and possibly more, provide breath analysers to allow the pilot to test themselves and should they show to be over the limit they are able to report sick without pay. Only if this becomes a regular occurrence are questions asked. I think this is the way forward for us here in the UK as is the removal of taboo status for the whole subject. If we are able to talk on the subject more freely then views can be more readily aired. Maybe this is a subject to be discussed at the next CRM renewal.

I agree that the security guard could have dealt with the matter in a different way but do also appreciate the difficulty in approaching a pilot with such a suspicion. Maybe a card (similar to those used by many carriers these days) could be provided or an invite to use the provided test equipment to assess ones suitability for duty. Maybe amongst the professionals (respecting the fact that this forum has become widely used by interested parties and journalists) we could come up with some suggestions that may save one of our careers one day while maintaining the social life that I feel is important in the stressful envroment that is aviation today. I for one will be investing in a home unit to be able to measure my own tolerance and metabolic rate so as to avoid the unfortunate situation that Capt. Nichols has found himself in.

grrowler

7th Dec 2004, 22:32

Mr Chips,

If someone has a problem with me and is too weak or too vindictive to approach me with his/ her problem, then I'm afraid, in my opinion, s/he is either spineless, or a snitch, or possibly both. How would you handle the problem?

Yes , James was doing his job, but I believe the way he handled it resulted in too severe a punishment. Had he instead, for example, approached the cap, then if no satisfactory response was forthcoming approached the company, threatened further action. This may have seen the pilot even lose his job, but 6 months in the slammer is ridiculous.

Unwell_Raptor

7th Dec 2004, 22:50

The Prune archives contain scores of posts complaining about the quality of airport security people, and many more posts pointing out that most of these people are paid at or near the minimum wage. So they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by deviating one iota from the SOP, which is to refer any problem upwards.

You get what you pay for, I am afraid.

Flying Lawyer

7th Dec 2004, 23:08

I disagree with U_R about the sentences.

I won’t deny that, from a professional point of view, I was pleased with the result - especially in light of a six month sentence having been imposed on the Manchester pilot for a much less serious offence. I underlined ‘professional’ only because, my personal view is that a community punishment order (unpaid work for the community) would probably have been sufficient. I’d have to accept it was borderline because the alcohol level was so high but, if a prison sentence was unavoidable, then I don’t think six months achieves anything that a much shorter sentence wouldn’t.
I simply don’t believe any pilot would think it was worth taking a chance if the likely sentence was (for example) ‘only’ a month, but not take a chance if a longer sentence was at stake. For decent people who haven’t been through the criminal courts or previously served a sentence, being sent to prison at all is horrific - whether for one month or six.
NB: My view would be very different if (for example) a pilot rostered to fly in the evening drank heavily at lunchtime and deliberately took a chance he wouldn’t get caught.

I think sending the Manchester pilot to prison was far too harsh. IMHO, he should have been given a heavy fine by the magistrates. I assume he’ll appeal, and it will be interesting to see if his sentence is reduced. (For various reasons, the best he can hope for is a reduced sentence. It’s extremely unlikely his sentence will be quashed altogether – but that doesn’t necessarily mean he shouldn’t have been fined in the first place.)

One thing is clear from these two cases:

Whatever our personal views may be about appropriate sentences, the courts are likely to take a severe approach to these offences.

BJCC
It may not be the responsibility of BAA personnel to give advice, but I’d think well of someone who tried to resolve the issue by having a quiet word. You don’t need to be an expert to do that. Unless a pilot has nothing to fear because he’s had nothing at all to drink, I suspect Go through and I’ll have to report it, go home and I won’t would do the trick in the vast majority of cases.

I don’t think your comparison with a shop-lifter is entirely valid. People who steal do so intentionally; the 20 mg limit is so low a pilot could easily commit this offence unintentionally.

Cortilla
That’s not how ‘precedent’ works.
Point of Law:
A court isn’t bound to follow a previous decision by a court of equal level.
Sentence:
If appropriate sentences for an offence have previously been considered by the Court of Appeal, particularly in a ‘sentencing guidelines’ case, Crown Court judges are bound to take the guidance into account but, even then, it is only guidance. The judge must impose the sentence he/she thinks is appropriate in the particular case - taking into account the facts/circumstances of the offence, any previous convictions, and any guidance given by the Court of Appeal in similar cases.

The judge sentencing the Heathrow pilot wasn’t bound by the sentence imposed by the judge in Manchester. It would be ludicrous if he was. If it was wrong, everyone else would be wrongly sentenced until the first appeal was considered by the Court of Appeal.
Either the Isleworth judge was too lenient (as U_R thinks) or the Manchester judge was too harsh. I don’t know anything about the Manchester case beyond what I’ve read in the Press and on PPRuNe but, given the big difference in alcohol levels between the two pilots, they can’t both have deserved the same sentence.
At present, there are no Court of Appeal decisions to give guidance. We’re not appealing the sentence. If the Manchester pilot appeals, there will be some guidance.

Tudor Owen

Metro man

7th Dec 2004, 23:39

Our jobs involve following rules and regulations ,that's why we have Civil Aviation ORDERS ,ORDERS to Flight Crew etc .If the book says X amount of alcohol is the limit then that's it ,it's no use arguing about how much more you think you can drink and still be unimpaired.

A number of years ago I had the "pleasure " of flying with a heavy drinker and have absolutely no doubt that had he been tested prior to one of our 6.00am Monday morning departures ,he would have registered far in excess of this particular captain ,considering he started drinking before lunch on Sunday and continued through dinner time. And before you ask yes I did report him ,as did another F/O and he was eventually fired ,not before time.

Whilst he may have appeared sober ,his performance was certainly below standard ,with some very serious errors, thankfully we were mostly VFR.

I have seen a pilot down the best part of a bottle of whisky in the evening and go flying the next morning ,I have also had another pilot request me to lower my voice during breakfast because of his hangover !

A recent survey showed pilots to be one of the most trusted professions ,along with nurses. How much longer will this continue if headlines about drunk pilots keep appearing ?

Some jobs require your lifestyle to conform ,would you like a drunk surgeon operating on your wife for example ? If my barber has a gambling problem I couldn't care less ,not so my accountant.

The security guard concerned was quite correct in reporting the Captain. Passengers have a right to expect flight crew entrusted with their lives to be sober ,if this means no more drinking binges other than when on leave and not flying for some time than so be it.

If drink means that much than become a turf accountant or scrap metal merchant ,where heavy drinking is normal ,indeed expected.

bjcc

7th Dec 2004, 23:41

FL

I think everyone on here would think well of him had he done that. However he didn't, was under NO obligation to do so.
Having spent a fair time working at Heathrow, and seen the way Security staff are treated, by thier own management, but aircrew and by Police then I am not suprised he didn't do it the way you and others have suggested.

The BAA lay down very strict rules for thier security staff, at his level he is not paid to make decisions, he's paid to do what his book tells him, and any deviation from that is in the BAA's eyes misconduct and he would face the sack. His 'book' will tell him he must report it to his supervisor, and thats how it will have gone up the line until it reached the point where someone was authorised to call the Police.

You have already noted that the airlines handling agent was also informed and that they spoke to him and he didn't think there was a problem. In which case, as he had this belief he was OK being spoken to by security would have had no effect.

I agree the sentences for both were on the face of it, harsh. The judges comments you quoted however seem to point to the Courts taking a very heavy line with this offence. I don't agree that a community service order would have been appropriate given the position of responsibility both men held, but a prison sentence of a month would probably have been sufficent.

I would agree with your comments on the shoplifer comparison if the guard had been in possession of the full facts, which of course he could not have been. The Guard cannot have know if he was going to fly knowing he'd had a drink or not.

Airbubba

8th Dec 2004, 01:30

>>...A recent survey showed pilots to be one of the most trusted professions ,along with nurses. How much longer will this continue if headlines about drunk pilots keep appearing ?<<

Yep, we need to stay away from the other end of the list with the lawyers, journalists and car salesmen:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/07/life.honesty.reut/index.html

>>Some jobs require your lifestyle to conform ,would you like a drunk surgeon operating on your wife for example ? If my barber has a gambling problem I couldn't care less ,not so my accountant.<<

Good point.

Metro man

8th Dec 2004, 04:04

Also we must remember that Royal Brunei is the national airline of a muslim country ,where Islam is taken seriously ie. RBA is a dry airline ,prayers to Allah are said over the IFE prior to departure and at regular intervals during flight an indicator showing distance/direction to Mecca is shown on the screens.

How do you think the Moslem passengers ,even the Sultan felt upon hearing one of the pilots had been arrested for drinking ?

This incident has reflected very badly on western pilots in the Moslem world, possibly damaging career prospects for those hoping to employed in the Middle East ,or Islamic countries.

slim_slag

8th Dec 2004, 09:19

Flying Lawyer,

the 20 mg limit is so low a pilot could easily commit this offence unintentionally.

Simply put, I can think of two ways to test at this level.

1) A small amount of alcohol close in time to the test
2) A large amount of alcohol not close in time to the test

(1) would require the pilot to have a quick drink within the eight hours prior to duty. That's intentional.

(2) would require the pilot to have at least 9 units of alcohol in a session finishing at least eight hour prior to duty. Lets look at this one.

Now I will be hammered by the apologists on this forum because we are all different, but it's pretty widely accepted that humans breaking down one unit of alcohol per hour is a good guide. That is what responsible people should be guided by.

9 units in a single session is over twice that considered healthy for daily intake. 10 units in a single session is considered Binge Drinking by the Royal College of Physicians of London - for a male. Lets not forget that females are airline pilots as well, and they are considered Binge Drinkers at 7 units in a single session.

So I would argue that for a pilot to turn up with a reading of 20, he is either deliberately drinking within the eight hours prior to duty (gross misconduct, fired), or has an alcohol problem and needs help. He/she should certainly not be flying a passenger jet and should be grounded until he sorts his drinking out, the airline should be supportive of him as long as he admits to it first.

And lets not get onto hangovers, or the effect of alcohol on sleep patterns, and thus fatigue.

slag (no 'D's after his name, but two 'M's, one from the august body referenced above :))

The Mystery

8th Dec 2004, 10:19

I have followed both the alcohol threads on Prune and I have noted the polarised views with interest. I feel sorry for both Captains who I believe without intent reported for duty over the limit, however, I also believe that if you choose to make your living exercising the privileges of a licence, you abide by the conditions thereof.

Alcohol is a dangerous drug but it can also be a recreational therapy. Each individual controls how much they pour down their own neck and must take responsibility for exercising their free will.

The limit for flying is a deservedly low given the responsibility of the job, however, be it the limit for flying or driving, up to the limit you are an individual exercising your free will, 1 sherry trifle later you have joined the incapable, irresponsible life threatening idiots brigade. It would appear from the 2 cases, the punishment was just for crossing the limit. The punishments show no graduation for the lack of self control each of the individuals had for how far they went over the line.

I was of the opinion Flight Safety was an industry goal. My company actively involves everybody in the safety culture and embraces every effort made by the airport authority to do the same. The security man played his role. Whether you agree on the way he did it is open to opinion. In my experience, the relationship between Flight Deck and Security is not often healthy. I have seen Flight Deck being pompous and arrogant towards security staff and I have also witnessed obtuse, jobsworth security personnel. Fortunately, both are a minority, however, it does not prevent both sides polarising their views of each other based on the few.

I would like to thank both Captain Nicholls and Flying Lawyer for their input into this thread. Many learning/reinforcement points in aviation come from the mistakes of others. Such points are only available if the person concerned is open and honest in their reporting. No one has a flawless flying career which means at some point, there by the grace of god go I.

Regards,
MrE.

Capt.KAOS

8th Dec 2004, 12:38

Heliport, I considered the security man in case as part of the authority to ensure the maximum of security for commercial aviation. Pls correct me if I'm wrong, but for once I don't agree with you; IMHO the security man had no choice.

In case a commercial pilot has been arrested/convicted for acohol abuse, is his CPL suspended, for a certain period or indefinitively?

AlanM

9th Dec 2004, 07:55

Surely it is the duty of everyone - inc Pax - to report a potentially drunken flight crew member/ATCO/aircraft engineer?

It is a sad event - but hopefully we will all learn from it.

(and with the Christmas season upon us there will be even more breathalyser tests on the road in the UK)

bjcc

9th Dec 2004, 08:21

They used to have to report anything unusal to thier supervisor. It could be said that a pilot smelling of drink is unusal.
Security staff don't call Police direct, they, as I said report to thier supervisor, who reports things to the next level up. At some stage the information arrives at BAA's control Centre. It is they that call Police, based on if they think Police need to be informed, irrespective of whether or not Police were asked for initialy.
In this case someone took the decision to inform the airlines handling agent as well, so it could be said that the security guard did do his job properly, that the BAA did try to help the guy out. The Pilot didn't take any action as the result of the warning that Police were or would be informed (albeit because he didn't see any need) and as a result he was arrested.

Big Kahuna

10th Dec 2004, 12:33

Metroman,

You have obviously never been to Brunei. The locals are some of the worst offenders. And don't think the Sultan is squeaky clean.

Metro man

10th Dec 2004, 21:27

Big Kahuna

We all know drinking goes on in Islamic countries ,and we know about the behaviour of some of their citizens abroad ;prostitutes ,gambling etc. As long as it is kept discreet everyone can pretend it doesn't happen and everyone is happy.
It provides a safety valve for people to go abroad and live it up ,come home and be saintly.

Bit different when it makes headline news ,major loss of face for the country concerned.

Gaza

11th Dec 2004, 09:50

FL

Of the 6 months how long will he stay inside? I would also assume that he will do some of the time in a "normal" prison before being moved to an open prison???

Question for all those who say the security gaurd was wrong:-

You witness a very drunk person putting their chidren in to a car and preparing to drive off. Do you:-

(a) Have a quite word?
(b) Call the Police?
(c) Do nothing?

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 10:31

I Ford it has everything to do with safety.

A few years ago during one of the xmas drink drive campaigns they showed a presenter on the local news here driving a car simulator. First, with no drink at all..then with progressivly more. The results? From the first drink thier ability to drive was impaired.

I stopped a woman driving out of Heathrow one evening. Her driving was appauling. She got out of the car, appeared stone cold sober, she probably was 'sober' in that she wasn't drunk. She gave no real indication of having been drinking at all...Having established, as far as I could there was no other reason for her bad driving, I breath tested her. Result? She was double the drink drive limits.

Now, these 2 examples are obviously car drivers. However I would suggest to you that the level of impairment you can get away with in a car is higher than it is in an aircraft. Secondly, there are many references to fatigue on here, combine that with alcohol and the problem is exassabated.

Turning to your suggestion that about drunkenness. NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THEY WERE 'Drunk'.

The offence they were both convicted of has to do with an arbatary blood alcohol limit, not a level of drunkness or otherwise.

A 'Sobriaty' test is irrelevent.

Remote, and others who suggest starting a war with security staff, a word of caution. Think about it a while. Security are not subject to the same legislation, rightly or wrongly. You can accuse them, and one or two may be sacked. What effect do you think that will have in return? It's been suggested that the security staff 'should' have had a word with the captain, do you think a security guard is going to be more disposed to do that if he read this and the related thread?

normal_nigel

11th Dec 2004, 10:42

However I would suggest to you that the level of impairment you can get away with in a car is higher than it is in an aircraft

On what basis do you suggest that? Do you have experince of both?

How many people get killed on he roads due to DD and how many people get killed in the air due to "Drink Flying"?

I suggest to you that the opposite is true implying that you may well be talking from the wrong end.

But Oh I forgot, coppers know everything.

Sorry.

NN

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 11:02

NN

Are you now suggesting that, not only should this law be repealled, but it is perfectly acceptable for pilots to fly drunk, because so far (in the UK) just one accident has happened because of alcohol?

We can argue about the level of impairment and the effect of flying v driving till the cows come home, apart from being ammusing it will achieve nothing. At some stage, a member of the medical profession would have given his opinon, which holds more weight than yours, or mine on the subject, which is why the levels are lower for pilots than drivers.

Even if you are correct.....then my point still applies, that ANY ALCOHOL impairs you ability.

normal_nigel

11th Dec 2004, 11:17

I am not suggesting anyone should fly under the influence of alcohol. However despite what any medics may say I am generally permitted to get into a car after say 2 pints but above the flying limit. I can then steam down the M1 in rush hour or drive aroiund a busy city.

I would say there is considerably less chance of an incident in an aircraft.

Therefore I say that the limit set for aviation is not well thought out and sensationalist.

Why is the figure different to driving?

Why set is very close to potential natural alcohol levels in the body?

If you are going to have any limit other than zero (actually it is in BA FCO's) whats the difference betwen driving and flying? Where's the evidence?

Oh and what's the one incident you refer to? Not a commercial incident to my knowledge.

Oh and don't take it personally. I hang around with a lot of cops. Its just the jumped up under trained newer ones that get on my nerves.

NN

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 11:31

NN

A piece of advice, 2 pints could put you way over the drink drive limit.

I would agree with a zero limit, for flying or driving. However I don't make legislation.

Why the differences? As I said, try the medics for the answer to that. I would presume because the level of concentration required for flying is probably higher than it is for driving.

Ill thought out the limits may well be, but I don't think sensationalist, afterall it's only on here really that its being talked about. The press will call anyone 'drunk' who convicted of a drink driving or flying offence, irrespective of thier level of 'drunkeness', it sells papers that way.

No, the incident I refer to was not commercial, but if you think about it you can't have a piece of legislation that says if you have a PPL you can't drink, if you have a commercial one you can. Would that mean that you could drink when flying passengers but get in a cessna you can't? You would consider that wrong, so would most people.

I don't take it personaly, it's all rather amusing to me. Younger Police become older Police eventualy they get the message.

slim_slag

11th Dec 2004, 12:29

Well it's all entertaining stuff. Professional pilots thinking they are experts on the effects of alcohol now, that is just as ludicrous as doctors thinking they are experts on swept-wing aerodynamics.

You minority of pilots who think if somebody 'knows how to drink' they will be better pilots that the 50% who don't (I'd take real offence to that) are really giving the rest of your peer group a bad name. You need to clean up your act.

Facts are, if you turn up to work with 20mg% of alcohol you have either been drinking within eight hours, or you went to bed pretty pissed (that's drunk to our American friends). There ain't no other way.

If you turn up to work with 120mg% (that's legally drunk by the way) and claim you haven't had a drink for 12 hours you must have been staggering off to bed. Again, there ain't no other way.

Whether Binge Drinking is acceptable the day before you take the controls of a passenger jet, I'll let the layman decide. You don't need to be an expert to work that one out. And if you ever get into court and try to argue the toss like whet is happening on this web site you will find lots of expert witnesses of the medical variety who will testify that you are indeed a Binge Drinker (Royal College of Physicians says so). Judges will accept that, they like doctors, they consider us fellow professionals you see. Best thing to do is plead guilty, keep the noise level down and take it on the chin, suspect this was the good advice given by his legal team.

This is a sad story, remote's well meaning, but somewhat foolish, defence of the guy suggests there were signs of problem drinking before hand. It would have been better for his friends in the airline to do something about it before a security official was forced to. It would be really good for professional pilots to sort their mates out, because when the courts do so it isn't pretty. That's the way doctors sorted out the drink problems that existed 20 years ago, self regulation before the law stepped in. And here endeth the lesson,

Rananim

11th Dec 2004, 12:58

Interestingly,nobody has connected the social and moral vacuum that plagues todays commercial aviation(and some may say society) to this incident and others like it.With companies like Ryanair and easyjet ousting traditional companies,forcing pilots to re-think their role and fight for survival,it is amazing that there arent more out there who drink.
Abuse and misinterpretation of CRM and the breakdown of the crew concept as a single unit with the Captain at its head has eroded the social and moral values that were once taken for granted.Go back just twenty years and this thing wouldnt have happened;simply because the crew wouldnt have allowed it to happen.Watching out for your fellow crew members(cockpit and FA's) used to be second-nature for all airline crews;nowadays,its probably the FA or F/O who will do the snitching.
All it needed was an experienced F/O(not some kid who just bought his type-rating ) to talk the Captain out of reporting for duty.He was on the same layover for Chrissakes.Did he not use his peripheral vision and clock how many drinks the skipper had?
Have you ever watched a smooth F/O talk a newish skipper into taking a couple of extra thousands pounds of fuel?Same thing here.Gentle art of persuasion.Go sick.Call in a standby.
Instead,this modern mannerless politically-correct world gives us thought police and little or no empathy from our fellow humans.

If both pilots hit the wagon,then the security staff,as a last line of defence,are there and they have a job to do.How they do it is usually an indication of their upbringing but can also reflect any personal grudges they may have(and many do).A quiet but firm warning at first,followed by arrest if it doesnt deter.

ILS 119.5

11th Dec 2004, 14:33

When the member of the medical profession gives their opinion, I hope they will be breathalised beforehand. When you've had a drink you can talk a load of bo****ks.

Unwell_Raptor

11th Dec 2004, 15:17

I have in my files a document that gives a formula for calculating blood alcohol levels.

(It is not to be taken as anything other than a contribution to the debate, and above all nobody must think that it gives them a way to compute what is a safe level of drinking).

Here goes:

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) equals weight of consumed alcohol in grams divided by body weight of subject in kilos multiplied by r.

r is 0.68 for a male and 0.58 for a female, being an estimate of the proportion of blood to bodyweight.

NB: the specific gravity of ethanol is, I am told, more or less .8

Now I am no scientist, but those out there who are might be able to work on the above to give us an idea of how much 13% ABV wine a 75kg man can drink to get to 20/100 in blood.

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 15:34

119.5

Have you been breath tested?

Is throwing insulting comments helping? No.

It's someone elses opinon, they are entitled to it, just because it's different from yours doesn't make in B******s.

Rather than using that expression, it would be interesting to hear your considered argument.

normal_nigel

11th Dec 2004, 15:52

BJ

A piece of advice, 2 pints could put you way over the drink drive limit.

Not when you are 6'2 and 15 stone. BAC has a direct corellation to body fluid content, so a big guy has a higher tolerance.

Shall we move this to the GMC forum?

NN

hobie

11th Dec 2004, 16:03

Simple solution - just don't drink or at least, not in the 24 hours b/4 departure (and no heavy drinking leading up to 24 hrs threshold)

Reading thru a thread on the A350 and half the posts (at the time of me reading) were all about places to go drinking :(

amazing :confused:

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 16:16

NN

Your driving licence, I wouldn't risk it.....

flapsforty

11th Dec 2004, 16:37

Go back just twenty years and this thing wouldnt have happened;simply because the crew wouldnt have allowed it to happen.Watching out for your fellow crew members(cockpit and FA's) used to be second-nature for all airline crews Rananim, I did as you propose and cast my mind 20 years back. My memories differ from yours. Yes people did watch out for eachother, but not any more than they now. Not where I work anyway. They watched out for eachother in a different way though, that's very true.
These days, we check our watches and decide when it's time for the last drink. Depending on who it is, the Captain or the Purser will come down heavily on a crewmember who orders another drink after that. 20 years ago, I remember from numerous occasions, especially on long trips away to the Far East, how excessive openly consumption of alcohol was the norm for some. How we all knew about it, talked about it, worried about it and never dared say a word. The FOs used to cover for the Captain, the FEs did the same. The Pursers 'knew their place in the chain of command' and kept their mouths firmly shut, while a young FA like myself didn't even consider speaking out for fear of getting the sack.
Uninmaginable in today's climate, but that's how it was.
Not a time to hark back to at all, at least in my mind.

Having said all that, I am not quarreling with your erosion of certain social and moral values. All I'm saying is that in some instances the values prevalent in those days have been replaced by values that are perhaps less 'cosy' but in no way less safe.

slim_slag

11th Dec 2004, 19:13

U_r,

Pretty pointless question unless you include time, I could drink wine all day and not hit 20mg%, if I did it slowly enough. Anyway, you have it the wrong way round, blood alcohol levels will be dropping in the case of somebody who stopped drinking 8 hours ago. Extrapolate back (use 15mg% per hour metabolised) and work it out from there.

Cheers bjcc, I suspect the majority are interested, shame the minority spoil it for them.

Flaps, what rules of thumb do you use?

Pax Vobiscum

11th Dec 2004, 20:39

Accepting the figures from both U_R and S_S:

Body mass = 75kg x 0.68 = 51kg (effective mass)

Bottle = 750ml x 13% (ABV) = 97.5ml alcohol x 0.8 (SG) = 78g

So a bottle of wine would give a blood alcohol figure of 78/51 = 153, reducing to below 20 after 9 hours.

Humans can vary widely in the rate at which alcohol is absorbed and in the rate at which it's eliminated, so these figures should be treated as a very rough estimate (but look plausible, to me anyway).

bjcc

11th Dec 2004, 22:42

Pax Vobiscum

Out of interest, can you translate that into pints rather than bottle of wine?

Thanks

Mr Chips

11th Dec 2004, 23:04

Just to be a boring pedantic old sod, the captain in this case was not only over the "avaiation" limit, but over the driving limit, so waffling on about low tolerance levels is a bit pointless.

The captain also drank heavily the day before flying on an empty stomach.

Kind of puts it in perspective, but then Normal Nigel and ILS119.5 have never let facts get in the way of a good rant on PPRuNe

Astrodome

12th Dec 2004, 00:25

We are given guidance that alcohol leaves the bloodstream at the rate of one unit every hour from the time one has finished drinking.

Put simply 8 units equates to 4 pints of low alcohol beer (3.5%). Time to clear the blood stream is therefore 8 hours.

A bottle of wine I had the other night equates a glass to 1.7 units of alcohol. Therefore after 4 glasses, I had the equivalent of 6.8 units requiring me to have a clear period of 6.8 hours (say 7 hours) prior to going to work.

If the pilot was at 20 when reporting for work then you do the maths.

By the way the level in the railway industry is 20 m/g in breath.

Above this level is automatic dismissal.

The level for Police action is 80 m/g or more

flapsforty

12th Dec 2004, 15:18

slim_slag, I'm mainly on short haul, where layovers are seldomly longer than 16 hours and often shorter. In practice, that doesn't give us neither the energy nor the time to do any partying. Drinking is therefore limited to one or two late in the evening before crashing into bed, or something to go with an early dinner before going to bed for a 4 AM wake-up.
The rule we use is 12 hours to flight departure.

On long haul, serious partying, like scuba diving ;) carries the rule "next flight at least 24 hours in the future".

Pax Vobiscum

12th Dec 2004, 15:38

bjcc raises a good question about beer compared to wine. British ale strength varies - draught bitters (the ones I drink) range from 3.3% to 5.5% ABV, though bottled beers can be much stronger than that, some almost as strong as wine.

Taking 4% as a round figure, a pint (568ml) will contain 23ml of alcohol (2.3 'units'), so a bottle of wine is roughly equivalent to 4 pints.

I'll get me anorak ...

Unwell_Raptor

12th Dec 2004, 23:15

Astrodome: I think you may be mixing up breath and blood limits. In a car in the uk it is 35 in breath or 80 in blood. Aviation is one quarter of that and I would not be surprised if it were the same on the railway. In many countries the BAC limit is 50 or even less.

normal_nigel

13th Dec 2004, 15:07

Chips

...and you've never let pprune get in the way of being a pompous know it all.

4PON4PIN

15th Dec 2004, 19:41

Flying Lawyer
Pse check yr pm's & advise if you got one from me. Many thanks

Life as a journey

16th Dec 2004, 11:24

Whichever way this is looked at, the conclusion is primarily one of sorrow for the Captain involved.

I knew him a little. I worked with him, even had a beer with him once or twice. This morning, when five minutes into a 10 minute warm up on the treadmill, I had this shocking revelation about how truly awful it must be to wake up in jail.

I let my mind wander a little...

I'm waking up in a hotel. He's waking up in jail.

My bed is big, comfortable, warm, covered with crisp sheets, a thick doona and blankets. Light is mostly shut out by the dark curtains, and noise is not an issue.

Chaz's mattress is probably hard. It stinks, and the steel springs it sags into squeak with age. There's a threadbare, regulation issue blanket, I guess, and the noise is definately an issue. As are the inmates.

I wake up in freedom, read my book a while, then get up and go to the gym. Later, I'll have a bloody hot shower, go out and buy some great food, maybe salmon shavings and a French stick from Sainsbury's. After that, I might even go to the bookstore down by the cinema. Then again, I might not. It's my choice.

Chaz is in prison. He's not about to do any of that. Maybe he wouldn't want to. Maybe he'd like, as one 'tough guy' mentioned, to sit in a pub and talk to you face to face.

Maybe not. But either way, it's not entirely relevant anymore because he can't. He's in jail.

Which on reflection, means there's not much to be happy about here.

The 'tough guy' didn't act tougher and face Chaz down; tell him how it was; that he was "what he was". He didn't assist in doing something to fix the addiction, probably because a dose of brutal honesty would risk their friendship.

There's sorrow that a guy who had so much potential managed to get himself into such an addictive state that he became blinded to what he'd become.

There's sorrow, of course, that he almost destroyed the reputation of the airline he worked for.

Personal responsibility is a big thing. If you are rostered for a flight, you are not in a position to drink before hand. Regardless of what side of the fence you stand on with respect to this sad, sad tale of ruin, you cannot avoid the brutally honest fact that when charged with the responsibility of poling a piece of machinery from A to B, you have no right whatsoever to turn up inebriated.

You can't blame this sort of result (Chaz in jail) on second or third parties, as some are trying to do. The responsibility rests with one person, and one person alone. Good luck in your state of denial if you persist in such a profitless venture.

No-one has the right to shrug off the seriousness of the job and say, 'It's my life, my free time during the layover, and I want to party.'

You, Tough Guy, and anyone else defending the fallen from the safety of anonymity, may have to spend some time thinking about that.

Better you do it now though. Better from here than the lonely, soul-destroying perspective you will have if you are ever so unfortunate as to be viewing life from behind bars.

I'd like to write to Chaz.

He needs the support, though when he knows who I am and recalls the falling out we had, perhaps he may not want to hear from me. Never mind. I'm willing to give it a go. There's one very lonely bloke out there.

Instead of spending time flaming five foot short 120 kilogram PPRuNers, you might also like to write to him Tough Guy.

Anyone got the address?

b.borg

16th Dec 2004, 11:43

LAAJ :ok:

Great post.

It sums up individual responsibility and the possible consequences of their actions.

Flying Lawyer

21st Dec 2004, 22:56

slim_slag
Apologies for the delay in responding. I’ve been a little busy prosecuting a group of City fraudsters who thought they’d found a clever scam to beat the system – wrong!

I stand by what I said: the 20 mg limit is so low a pilot could easily commit this offence unintentionally.

My warning was primarily aimed at pilots who enjoy an evening’s drinking, not those who drink only a modest amount.
There has been a significant change in the law, not only because of the breathtest procedure, but because there is now a legal alcohol limit. Under the ANO, the test was whether a pilot’s capacity to act as flight crew was impaired by alcohol. (That is now the offence of 'Being Unfit for Duty'.) However, UK pilots who've spent their professional lives working under that law now have to get used (very quickly) to a new law where, if they are found with traces of alcohol in their system, they commit an offence - even if the traces are small and their ability to fly is not impaired.

Under the old law, abiding by the old rule/adage, variously expressed as 8 or 12 hours between bottle and throttle, was probably sufficient to stay legal in most cases. Not any more. There’s a significant difference between the time it takes for alcohol level to fall to the level where someone isn’t impaired by alcohol, and the time it takes to fall to 20 mg which is effectively zero for practical purposes. I think there is a real danger that some pilots could be caught out, even if they think they’ve been ‘careful’ and honesty believe they are legal.

If someone isn’t a regular drinker, the risk is correspondingly lower. eg I don’t drink much and, on average, no more than once a week so, if I go to a party and drink all evening, I get drunk quite quickly and feel rough the next morning. The ‘warning signs’ are quite clear and I know there is likely to be alcohol still in my system. Regular drinkers could drink the same amount without feeling drunk and don’t feel the warning signs next morning. They’d probably pass an ‘impairment’ test (the old law) but may end be guilty of an offence under the new law.

Figures, formulae, percentages and calculations are all very well, but few people know what a unit of alcohol means in real terms – and even fewer know how long it takes (on average) for alcohol to leave the body.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that a night's sleep after an evening's drinking session means they've 'slept it off' and start the next day 'clean'.
Most people know they'll get drunk more quickly if they drink on an empty stomache, but far fewer know the effect that not eating while or after drinkging will have on the time it takes for alcohol to leave their bloodstream.
They need to learn these things or they could pay a heavy price.

It's all very well to say that people who drink over a certain amount have a drink problem in the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians and ought to seek help but, to a non-medic, the figures are quite low and most people who drink that amount won't think they have.

I don’t claim any expertise but I think pilots who enjoy an evening's drinking would be wise to work on 24 hours between bottle and throttle – more if it was a heavy session. There’s too much to lose to take a chance.

’Well it's all entertaining stuff. Professional pilots thinking they are experts on the effects of alcohol now.’
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Surely a discussion between people from different fields is useful? Beliefs we’ve held and expressed in posts may turn out to be wrong, but someone who knows better will soon correct us. It’s a good way of learning.
”120mg% (that's legally drunk by the way)”
Where do you get that from? I’m always willing to learn.
”And if you ever get into court and try to argue the toss like what is happening on this web site you will find lots of expert witnesses of the medical variety who will testify that you are indeed a Binge Drinker.”
No they won’t. Experts wouldn’t be permitted to express such an opinion in relation to these offences.
”Judges will accept that, they like doctors, .... fellow professionals etc.”
Doctors’ opinions aren’t accepted without question. Judges are well-used to deciding between the opinions of two doctors, both claiming to give their objective expert opinion, and both expressing opposite opinions which just happen to coincide with the interests of the side which has called them to give evidence. ;)

In conclusion, you seem to think I'm an apologist for pilots who drink heavily and then go flying. Not so. I'm simply trying to help people to avoid losing their careers and being sent to prison.

Gaza
’Of the 6 months, how long will he stay inside?’
A maximum of 3 months. There are ‘early release’ procedures in appropriate cases so it could possibly be less.
’I would also assume that he will do some of the time in a "normal" prison before being moved to an open prison???’
Yes, but usually only for a short time where a prisoner isn’t a security risk, is of previous good character and isn’t serving a long sentence for a serious offence.
In this case, the captain was sent to Wormwood Scrubs prison initially, but transferred to an open prison very quickly.

Mr Chips
”The captain in this case was not only over the "aviation" limit, but over the driving limit, so waffling on about low tolerance levels is a bit pointless.”
The discussion may nonetheless be useful if it helps other pilots realise they may find themselves guilty of an offence and in prison even though they’ve had much less to drink and believe they’re legal. (The Manchester pilot was also sentenced to six months even though his level was much lower and well below the driving limit.)

Life as a journey
Good post.
If you want to write, I have the address – e-mail me.

The new law is discussed here if anyone's interested: Link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113035)

This post has turned out to be longer than I intended. Sorry - hope it's of some help.

Tudor Owen

Bright-Ling

22nd Dec 2004, 01:41

Flying Lawyer
The discussion may nonetheless be useful if it helps other pilots realise they may find themselves guilty of an offence and in prison

Assuming you mean ATC/Flight crew/ etc then bravo..... well said.

And your posts are always helpful - though not always nice to hear :(

Well done for your input

RatherBeFlying

22nd Dec 2004, 01:59

Those of us who enjoy beer or wine with dinner the night before have very little in the way of information to ensure we will be safely within limits when the police breathalyzer is wielded.

Given the uncertainty and the low limit, I would very much appreciate an opportunity to calibrate my body against a police issue breathalyzer on a day I would not be flying so that I could positively know for certain how to conduct myself so that I would not be found in violation when about to fly.

R8TED THRUST

22nd Dec 2004, 04:05

The legal driving limit should be used these days for pilots as most of our companies treat us like bus drivers anyway!

Cheers,:sad:

cactusbusdrvr

22nd Dec 2004, 05:09

With all the formulae out there you'd think we could get this down to a science. But for me the biggest lesson (besides drinking in moderation) is to eat real meals if you are having a few. Having food in your stomach and digestive sysytem will aid in metabolizing the alcohol. Had the Captain done so he probably would not have tested so high. Those drinks were just sitting there in him and were not absorbed fast enough. A tragedy could have been averted with just a couple of meals.

Yaw String

22nd Dec 2004, 13:30

Regardless of your present location Chas, Merry Christmas mate.
Come and see us in BGY when your out.
MG.

Mick Jagger

22nd Dec 2004, 13:37

May the time pass quickly old mate and may you be out before you know it. If you are ever through Hong Kong let me and Mas know.

There will be an glass on the table for you at New Years in Dubai

cactusbusdrvr

22nd Dec 2004, 15:46

This just in from the FAA.

Refuse a Drug Test and You Could Lose Your License
Concerned by its findings involving airline pilots, the FAA is proposing to amend airman medical standards so that a refusal to submit to a required drug or alcohol test carries the same penalty as failure of a test–revocation or disqualification from holding an airman medical certificate. The same penalty awaits a pilot with an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater. Further, the FAA proposes to standardize the time period for reporting refusals and certain test results. The FAA said it reviewed its medical qualification regulations because “we continue to be concerned about the number of commercial pilots misusing alcohol, resulting in their potential impairment during the performance of commercial flight duties.” Between 1998 and 2003, seventy-one airline pilots were identified by federal alcohol testing programs as having a breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater, the agency said. Drug and alcohol testing is required for pilots operating under Part 135 or 121. Comments on the proposal are due March 14. For more information, call Sherry de Vries at the FAA at (202) 267-8693

Astrodome

22nd Dec 2004, 20:27

I think you will find that food, like the old favourite about coffee doesn't work.

Food goes into the digestive system.

Alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream

Ttree Ttrimmer

22nd Dec 2004, 22:34

Astrodome; You have to be kidding surely?

Ratherbeflying; That is exactly my concern. Having bought myself an electronic breath analyser I would now like to gauge it's accuracy and therefore my suitability to operate within the rules.

Flying Lawyer; Thank you very much for your time. Your posts are very useful and informative and address some of the issues directly.

It seems to me that the figure selected is rather arbitrary. The wording includes impairment yet many studies have shown that between 0.02 and 0.04 reaction and performance is enhanced. Can anyone give reason to why the figure was selected so low. I understand that it is not zero because of the body's ability to synthesise alcohol itself but surely there must be more to the story.

dicksynormous

23rd Dec 2004, 10:56

Are the breath analysers bog standard issue as per general public (driving) or is there a specific machine or calibrated version for the lower flying tolerances.?

Where can one be bought?

Flying Lawyer. As its possible to be over the low limits even with a responsible lifestyle , isnt there any help in the Human Rights act. Never mind "right to Life", what about the "right to A life". Thats not as silly as it may first sound i think.:ok:

visibility3miles

23rd Dec 2004, 13:53

Actually, the idea of getting tested on days when you won't be flying is a good one (or getting charts that show blood alcohol versus time after a certain number of drinks), as most people don't know what their alcohol level might be.

Aviat Space Environ Med. 1997 Jun;68(6):531-7.

Pilots' knowledge of the relationship between alcohol consumption and levels of blood alcohol concentration.

Widders R, Harris D.

Department of Applied Psychology, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, U.K.

The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority is currently proposing that a maximum BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) limit of just 0.02% should be imposed on United Kingdom pilots. In this survey of 477 pilots, it was found that a large proportion could not determine when their BAC was likely to fall below this level after drinking alcohol and could, therefore, potentially inadvertently infringe the proposed regulation. Another large proportion of pilots felt that they were safe to fly before their BAC had dropped below 0.02%, which may be indicative of a willingness to infringe the regulations. Estimates of when it was safe to fly also became more inaccurate as the amount drunk increased and varied with the type of alcoholic beverage consumed. It was also found that the conclusions drawn were heavily dependent upon the formula used to estimate BAC. This methodological problem identified has considerable implications for the study of alcohol consumption when flying.

bjcc

23rd Dec 2004, 17:21

Ttree Ttrimmer

I'm not sure where you get the information about low levels of alcohol increase performance?

The BAC level is arbitary, and it is an offence to have more than that level in your blood. Whatever effect it does or does not have on you. There is a second offence which involves impariment by drink or drugs.

The same thing applies to drinking and driving, and that legislation is often missunderstood.

Astradome is absolutly correect, coffee will have NO effect on your BAC.

dicksynormous

Yes there are breath test machines that are calibrated to give an indication of your BAC. Originaly, they worked on a 'traffic light' system, which would change as per the levels to which they were set. Now, ones are used which either are calibrated for this act, or I believe some forces have a read out, which makes it usable for Road Traffic Act or this Offence.

What about passengers Human Rights?

As to the various formulas for 'working out' your BAC, forget it. They are based on avarage, and don't relate to the real world. In any case it can change for the same person from day to day.

dicksynormous

23rd Dec 2004, 18:16

BJCC,
didnt you mean Passengers Human? .....yeah right.

No drinkin (jail), no fightin( disclosure), guess that just leaves whorin. For now, but there probably working on that.

Guess things are here to stay until a perfectly normal,sober individual, not dressed like a pilot with no history of anything attacks and kills the passengers individualy with a set of tweezers and then wont take off in anger. When the new knee jerk laws come out to combat all that we should be back to normal.

I agree with zero tolerance but not with a system that enables anyone with a grudge/chip to accuse anyone they dislike. A false accusation will do alot of damage thru the tabloids even if you are innocent and i guess the accuser will be protected by the data protection act. Just like the scrote who took money from my account and got away with it because the bank didnt want to pursue. I couldnt get the mans details to pursue legal action because of HIS rights. Now superimpose a random bitter employee and a stroppy capt into that same equation, and you may be fighting for your reputation against an anonymous accuser overnight. Meanwhile the tabloids have already sentenced you.

Bit of a rant so i hope i made my point.

:D

newarksmells

23rd Dec 2004, 18:35

I feel sorry for the individual and even more so about the jail time. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Having said that, if his alcohol level was that high the morning after, this individual needs some serious help and not jail.

How many drinks would it take to get in that state? Obviously depends on weight, time, food intake etc. Having said that, it would still take a hell of a lot. The trouble with alcoholics is that they don't know when enough is enough and when having a "good buzz" isn't going to improve with more drinking. They are eternally after the ultimate high. I know that. I was one.

Until the individual realizes he has a problem and stops cold-turkey, his spiral will continue downward. Once you hit bottom, and this person has lost his job, lifestyle and freedom, hopefully this will be the wakeup call to work his way out of his personal demons.

Alcohol, just like drugs, can and does destroy lives despite the babes portrayed in the commercials. Believe it or not, they don't find guys more attractive after they guys have consumed 7 or 8 drinks.

Newarksmells.

bjcc

23rd Dec 2004, 19:32

dicksynormous

While you have made your point, it's a very narrow one. OK, so you don't agree with someone being able to report you to police for this offence. What makes this offence different in that respect from any other.

A fair number of dectected crimes in the UK comes from information given to police. It may be some of that information is motivated by someone with a grudge. A large proportion is given by people who's motivation is a sense of public duty. There is no distinction, and in this case while the implication has been (without any evidence) that reporting the captain was malice, in reality it was because that was what he was supposed to do. No blame or responsibility for the pilots downfall can be laid at his, or anyone elses door.

Yes, he could have dealt with it another way, ignoring the instructions of his employer, and that would probably have resulted in him being sacked. Would the sympathy shown the pilot have been shown to the guard for doing him a favour? No.

No one forced the pilot to have a drink. It may have been he made a mistake, but it was his mistake and no one elses. It is his responsibility to ensure he doesn't break the law, the same as with any offence.

You are not fighting against an 'anonymous accuser', you are fighting against evidence provided by yourself (in the form of a breath and blood test) for an offence you have committed yourself.

dicksynormous

23rd Dec 2004, 23:00

bjcc,

I havent committed any offence , your grammar/use of tense suggests i have.

I was not refering to this case but there is a good chance a spurious report may happen. The average joe in the street being reported is not likely to be the target of a tabloid response of the scale a pilot being tested on an aircraft or led away for testing would be exposed to. With all the associated career or at least reputation damage . If that testing is negative ,the damage is done. Hung out to dry by the press and the hordes of people lining up for their 15 minutes.What redress is there then.

The anonymous accuser can mess up your life by instigating a report with malice, which is then acted on publicly.It wont matter if you hadnt drunk for ten years. Remeber all the "hero"pilots in the press who have done nothing more Than fly an aircraft on a pan status with no real drama. Well prepare yourself for a rash of "drunk pilots at controls" all of wich will probably be UNDER the limits but all OVER the front page. Human nature isnt black and white you see.

Cast off that blinker of a coppers phsyce,set yourself free . Think out of the box old boy, it'll help in the flying world.

;) Ps thats a wink which indicates tongue in cheek. Thought i better clear that up just in case you've got a traffic cop sense of humour.

Pps do you ever get the urge to combine the past with the present and stand on a box with big white arm bands on directing your traffic :ok:

Ttree Ttrimmer

24th Dec 2004, 00:13

BJCC; I believe I read about the report in a BALPA newsletter about the time the law was changed. ELAC also refers to a study carried out by FAA/NASA in an earlier post on this thread. I do stand corrected on the fact that it would seem that 2 offences may have been committed here but I was under the impression that the BAC limit was used as an indication of impairment.

My point on this situation is that we need to know where we stand in relation to the law. I am not saying that we should be able to break the law but want to be able to prevent a similar situation happening to myself or my colleagues. If you could move on with the thread, maybe would could learn something other than your opinion on this case. Reading and understanding peoples posts before making damning comments may help.

The comment to Astrodome was about the differentiation between food and alcohol. They both use the digestive system and both will be absorbed into the bloodstream. The body does deal with them in a slightly different way but the end result is that both end up in the bloodstream. Not only eating but the type of food eaten can help in the processing and absorbtion of alcohol. There have been several studies that have shown this.

bjcc

24th Dec 2004, 06:43

dicksynormous

As I have said before, if a test is carried out on the flight deck, with the door shut, then no one need know, unless the crew go to the media. As regards to someone who has not had a drink in 10 years, that is not going to lead to him being dragged off. He will pass a screening test. As you know the media is not going trumpet the headline 'Pilot Passes Breath Test'.

If someones arrested, then yes they will report it, the same as they report police officers for the same, even if they are aquitted. But thats something that goes with the job.

If the test is passed, or the accused is aquitted, then there can be no detriment to his job.

Any old Joe can report a person for any offence ranging from , importing drugs, taking too many duty free's into a country. And of course if it is a Joess then rape. This offence is no different to that, and no different to Mr avarge in the street.

However in the case of an offence under this act (and the RTA) the evidence is not that of 'Joe', it is of the Police Officer and the defendent (in the form of the breath and blood test). The evidence to a great extent is proved by the arrested person themselves.

I am aware that icon is humour...but thank you anyway. NEVER was I a traffic officer, my parents were married!

Ttree Ttrimmer

He didn't commit 2 offences, just one. But there are 2 offences in the Act. The one this pilot fell foul of and a second, which there must be evidence of impairment.

Both offences can be committed at the same time, but there would only be a charge of one or the other.

If you read the link FL pointed everyone too, then you will note that I also have tried to help you and your collegues to not commit these offences.

As to food, my understanding is that it will slow down the absorbtion of alcohol, which can make matters worse in someways, meaning your BAC can be higher further along the time line than it would have been.

What does not help you and your collegues is that there is no reliable way of knowing what your BAC is after you finish drinking and say 12 hours later. There are 2 logical answers to me. First is buy your own screening device, and if you are in doubt, test yourself twice with an hour gap between the 2 (the second test to ensure you going down).

The alternative would rely on airlines providing the equiptment for you to descretly test before doing anything relating to aviation.

toon

24th Dec 2004, 07:10

Wasn't it all alot simpler when it was 8 hours between bottle and throttle ?

BEagle

24th Dec 2004, 07:44

And when you had a decent lifestyle with reasonable night stops.
And when you weren't treated like a criminal at an airport.
And when the flight deck door wasn't locked.
And when the crew looked after eachother.
And when the Captain's word was law.

Just a few of the many reasons I decided not to apply to the airlines when I left the military....

Few Cloudy

24th Dec 2004, 07:46

When I joined the RAF about 42 years back, the 2nd world war was still very much in peoples´memories. That was a time when night after night, young newly trained men were being sent into deadly dangerous situations. They drank a lot - probably quite a few became alcoholics if the truth be known - to drown their fears and to live a convivial life between raids.

This tradition of drinking a lot was still in place when I joined - indeed, anyone not "liking his pint" was looked upon as somehow unmanly or strange.

So what happened to me? Firstly I learned to drink beer - then I learned to like drinking beer. The bar was the social centre of service life and pretty soon the idea of having fun without alcohol became unthinkable. There was, at the time an 8 hour rule - though I must say I sometimes used 100% oxygen to clear my head after a late night in the bar. The penny gradually dropped, that drinking and flying aeroplanes were not the best bedfellows.

When I joined an airline - 34 years ago, the pilots were largely ex military and drinking on night stops was standard - although there was usually a dinner involved. Again, anybody not drinking at dinner would be thought of as a bit of an outsider.

As I progressed through the ranks and posts, the general level of drinking in crews dropped. New young sporting copilots and cabin crews came along, who didn´t drink much - or didn´t drink at all.

Finally I was in an airline with a 24 hour rule. Once I got used to it, I was glad of the rule. I found one could have a good evening out without having to consume alcohol. I found that I could get up better in the morning - and I found my perfomance - especially on a long day - improved. The applicable phrase here is "once I got used to it". It wasn´t too easy.

The way things are going, I think we all need a shake up and a break with this dubious "tradition" of drinking. Rules won´t do it. Responsible behaviour and thought will.

Bronx

24th Dec 2004, 08:29

bjcc

Maybe a third request won't do no good but I'll try anyways. PLEASE let the discussion move on.
This ain't Jetblast, you don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over. You made your points. Just because somebody else gives an opposite opinion later don't mean you have to give yours all over again. When you start with "As I have said before", it's a good sign not to say it again.

There's a whole bunch of things I think you're wrong about, like security guards are instructed to report pilots they suspect have been drinking (bet you've never seen their instructions) and losing their jobs if they don't, like no damage to a pilot's reputation if he's innocent :rolleyes: when the have told the newspapers he got arrested :mad: but arging with you about them they ain't gonna help anybody learn anything so I won't.

As TreeTrimmer said "If you could move on with the thread, maybe we could learn something other than your opinion on this case." :ok:

Few Cloudy

24th Dec 2004, 10:21

So where do you wish to move on to, Bronx?

In this particular case the guy was indiscussably unfit to fly.

An employee of the airline industry (motto - we are all responsible for flight safety - not just pilots) reported this as best he saw fit.

The pilot didn''t fly.

The passengers and crew are all inconvenienced but safe.

Sure it isn't nice to be caught. It could perhaps have been done more discreetly BUT - as you yourself suspect, the security man was not trained in this specific case. He did his best to prevent an accident.

To my discredit, I once flew from Nairobi to - er Europe after the FE and I had become aware that the captain was probably under the influence of alcohol. We later had to correct several situations in flight as a result of this. I am not proud of this action and wish I had had the moral courage of this security man.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to "move on" is for us all to get quite a bit more responsible on the subject.

facsimile

24th Dec 2004, 12:01

Flying Lawyer posted 23rd December 2003 21:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bjcc

Re "I doubt if Police would want to go wandering airside areas in the hope of catching a pilot out."

Perhaps not.
But if some security screener (or anyone else) decides to report his/her suspicions, either because he regards it as his 'duty' or because a pilot has upset him, the police would undoubtedly go into action.

[Last edited by Flying Lawyer on 24th December 2003 at 04:25]

Mr Owen your perception was quite remarkable after reading your post a year later.

bjcc

24th Dec 2004, 15:06

I am more than happy to move on. But the constant repeat of blame towards the security guard is in my opinon wrong. When the attempts to blame others stop, then I will stop defending them. It's as simple as that. Thats my 2 cents worth.

Bronx, I spent 13 years working at Heathrow as a Police Officer, so yes, I do know the BAA Security instructions, and erksome as some of them are, they do not allow descression at most levels, They have a set proccedure, they follow it, or find the door.

A small correction, what FL said was the pilot had a run in with the supervisor at the control post previously regarding inappropriate comments about female crew. There was no allagation that this guard was involved in that, and in fact as there are several hundred guards working a 24 hour shift system where they rotate round the numerous airside entry points, it 's not lightly he was involved.

facsimile

What you say is true, the Police will do something if it's reported to them. I'm sorry but I don't follow your point, are you suggesting they shouldn't?

From experience, I didn't have time to cruise the airside areas looking for pilots doing things wrong, I had more pressing things to do.

There is no reason why anyone should not report anything that they regard as illegal or wrong to the Police. It's the way the Police have operated since they were formed in the UK.

hobie

24th Dec 2004, 15:37

How much can one safely drink? .....

Will food help reduce the effects of drink .....

where can I get a reliable Breath Tester? ....

Some of the questions being asked .... its not the "Direction" to go guys! :( ......

Drink moderately before Duty and not at all 24 hours B/4 any flight ..... if you want a drink try Alchohol free Larger, Ice Cold - you wont like to drink a bucket of it and you wont get a "Buzz" from it but that's the whole idea :ok:

dicksynormous

24th Dec 2004, 17:53

Bjcc wrote:

I didn't have time to cruise the airside areas looking for pilots

I should bloody well hope not darling:ok:

Gives a new meaning to your name tho', but i bet you were cute in that uniform

Dont you hate it when something innocent is taken out of context. just the like the potential treatment we can expect from the tabloids should my paranoia be realised, while security sid or dave the driver get on with reading the sun and telling their mates in the pub for the rest of their lives, and then driving to work after a heavy night out.

Just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not out to get you.

Flying Lawyer

24th Dec 2004, 18:42

bjcc

"When the attempts to blame others stop, then I will stop defending them. It's as simple as that."
I wish you didn't take that view which IMHO is little better than a threat to disrupt the discussion if anyone dares to disagree with your views on the security guard. You've said what you think. Some others take a different view. So what?
You obviously think that aspect is of great importance. I think it's irrelevant and not worth arguing about. There's no point in my joining the chorus asking you to let it go - but I wish you would. ;)

Re your 'small correction':
Simply for accuracy, not because I think it has any relevance to what people are now trying to discuss, but it was the same guard. Praise for his moral courage may be misplaced.

facsimile didn't suggest the police shouldn't have taken action. He said nothing of the sort. He simply commented on a coincidence.
Dear me, you do look for little things to disagree with. Good sport, but you might want to consider whether it helps or hinders discussion of the more important issues.

Merry Christmas to you and to anyone else still reading.
I'm logging off for the weekend.

bjcc

24th Dec 2004, 19:05

The security guard is not in a position to answer the sillier comments on the issue, if its not mentioned again, then I wont either.

dicksynormous

Duckie, you may have been right, but I take your point.
Mine was yep, it wont do your prospects any good if you do get as far as being arrested, but in that aircrew are not alone.

Merry xmas...and give us a kiss

Datcon

24th Dec 2004, 19:14

One of my kids used to try to get her own way like bjcc.
We didn't give in and thankfully she grew out of it when she started school.

Pathetic in an adult. :rolleyes:

Looks like he means his threat. Best to let him get on with it.
Once a policeman, always a policeman I guess.

I'm very careful and pretty confident the new law won't affect me.
Hope they don't turn out to be famous last words.

mach79

25th Dec 2004, 09:30

BJCC

You will notice this my first post-but don't let that fool you, I've been in on PPRUNE from the start.
I joined again to give you the message that I have got sick to death of coming onto this forum and listen to your pontificating on points of law.
It gets a bit tedious reading your guff, and worse , your piss@ng people like FL off , -his is one contribution(unlike your own) that I'm sure many appreciate here.

Just to tell you matey, I joined the service when Z-cars were still on TV, and reached a rank higher than PC-oh yes, and when I used to write my reports, my spelling was not as embarrassing as yours-an old chestnut now on this forum-but for someone who likes to get the last say, you fall flat on yer face with your writings.

Why don't you get a life? BJCC

bjcc

25th Dec 2004, 09:41

mach79

I am happy you can express your point of view. I have a life but thank you for your comments.

I don't regard defending someone who is constantly attacked without looking at his point of view as 'pontificating' on points of law, but then you were (you say) of a higher rank, and therefore must know better.

mach79

25th Dec 2004, 10:00

BJCC

No, I wasn't one of the ones who abused their rank with a holier -than- thou, I know better attitude.
By the way, "I didn't know better"- I knew what I had to know, and knew exactly what I could and couldn't do within the law, -and in my time saw a lot that happened outwith the law, at a time when it was common practice.

It just strikes me after reading your posts that you could put your point of view across better than you have been doing. Maybe this is why you have been "constantly attacked" as you put it.
By the way-in case you didn't know, there is an awful lot of ex-cops out there who became pilots.

bjcc

25th Dec 2004, 10:29

mach79

What you call constant attack doesn't bother me. Perhaps if you read the entire thread you will note than there are many others who have, if not defended this guy, agree that he shouldn't be slated for what he did. Those include pilots. I have not defended the guard except where he has been attacked. Remember he's not here to defend himself, and whatever the history, he really did not have an option.

I agree with Bronx when he said this was developing in the right direction. However the constant attempts to shift the blame to others in not helpful. If someone falls foul of this legislation, then it is they alone that are responsible.

I am pleased you didn't abuse your rank. And Z cars was still being shown on TV when I joined.

I accept I can put things badly, and I am completly open about my lack of ability to spell! But thank you for pointing it out (again!)

Perhaps this can now move on without attacking people.

hobie

25th Dec 2004, 10:46

some of the spelling on PPRuNe is desperate :( but there is a simple solution .... write your post in something like "WORD" and run its spell check ..... then copy and paste into your reply on PPRuNe

If I see "here" instead of "hear" anymore I'm going to go crazy :{
(mind you a spelling check will not cure that problem :ugh: )

:ok:

JNX

25th Dec 2004, 14:10

Have just read the thread with interest, a mulititude of opinia indeed.

Fact is that the man broke the rules on this occasion (I have met him on many occasions), sad though that is, albeit due to oversight, other mitigating circumstances etc. we're not in a kindergarten!!!

We all know the ramifications both professionally/socially/medically of "hanging one on". The little next morning Gremlin is there for a reason!! and when he whispers, you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

I woke-up last feb. after a bike crash that left me paraplegic (thankfully no-one else involved), due to excess in blood, lost my career, my family,my dignity and worst of all, most of my friends.

My heart goes out to Capt. Nicholl but I can't condone the bitching that is taking place,

S**t happens mainly for a good reason - let it rest!

mach79

25th Dec 2004, 14:20

Bjcc

Sorry, you gave the impression to me that you had only recently left police work??
My mishtake, I'm sure.........

Heliport

26th Dec 2004, 07:25

bjcc
Yes, many others “have, if not defended this guy, agreed that he shouldn't be slated for what he did”, just as others have said they don’t admire or approve of what the guard did, or think he could have handled it better. The difference is everyone else has given their opinion and left it, not come back and repeated what they’ve already said. It's only a side-issue, not the central issue.

Maybe Mach79’s description ‘pontificating’ was a bit harsh, but you do come across as pronouncing your opinions as if they’re unarguable facts rather than your opinions.
If someone reads the thread and isn’t persuaded by what you’ve already said, you’re not going to persuade them to change their minds by saying the same thing again. All you achieve is sidetracking the discussion into one side-issue which helps no-one and causes irritation.
If you really can’t resist the temptation to react each time someone new criticises the guard, it would help the discussion move on if you limited yourself to something like "I disagree. I won't repeat myself, look at page n" rather than "As I have said before ...." and then saying it all over again. Repeating yourself doesn't turn your opinion into a fact. If you'd kindly co-operate, we won’t lose track of the central issues which go way beyond the facts of this one particular case.
It might help if you slowed down, and also tried to think outside the box.
eg You're sometimes so keen to disagree with people that you post without reading what they’ve actually said.
eg You don’t seem to grasp that criticising the guard doesn’t necessarily mean trying to shift the blame. If you take time to think it through, you'll should be able to see it’s possible to disapprove of what both the pilot and the guard did.
IMHO, you do (generally) give the impression of only thinking in black and white. Things aren't always that extreme, they can be both or neither. If you show you are at least trying to think outside the box, it will cause less frustration – and do wonders for your credibility.
You’ve made it very clear you’re not influenced by people asking you not to let your strong views on a side-issue spoil the discussion, and say you’re not bothered by the criticism. If you really don’t care what people think, there’s no point in posting except for personal gratification.

hobie

26th Dec 2004, 08:51

Alchohol dependancy can creep up on someone wilthout them (or anyone else) ever realizing its happening ..... I've experienced some desperate revelations on guys I've known or worked with over the years ..... guys I've questioned for irrational behaviour accasionally, and then eventually discovering a real problem existed .....

One guy wiped out his family (wife and kids) through drinking and driving .... re-married and had another couple of kids and years later I ran into him again and he was still drinking

Another guy ..... had to be watched carefully for some of the most crazy decisions being made at times ..... "He woke up 'dead' one day, alone and totally saturated !

These were guys considered "the salt of the earth" !!!

Truth Seekers Int'nl

26th Dec 2004, 10:13

............hobie, I think you may like a drink or three on a hot day !

hobie

26th Dec 2004, 12:46

TSI ...... nothing at all wrong with a drink (or three) on a hot day ..... just don't take a 200 million dollar Aircraft and 400 pas off the ground eight hours later .... in fact don't do it till 24 hours later .... :ok:

I spent a good part of my life flying around the world .... been in all the bars ..... met all the guys and gals .... tried all the drinks .... on every stop ..... but those days are over .... it is (and has to be) a different world today .....

fly safely buddie :ok:

Bern Oulli

26th Dec 2004, 20:10

Someone, indeed quite a few people, have queried the logic of the (relatively) low limit set by the legislation. Now I have spent a fair bit of time reading through this entire thread (I know, I should really get out more) and no-one has asked "WHAT EFFECT DOES ALTITUDE HAVE on a person with alcohol in their system?"

Assuming the crew aren't on a secretive oxygen jag behing their locked door they are at the same cabin altitude as Mr & Mrs SLF (Which is what, by the way? 8,000'? ish).

So I'm asking. Any aviation medicos out there?

stagn8

27th Dec 2004, 05:30

I just wonder who checks the checkers ? Do any accountants or lawyers get breath-tested? What about doctors, don't they party quite hard ? Not that its OK to drink and fly because it's not... but how do other professions check themsleves ? :confused:

400 Hertz

27th Dec 2004, 22:06

Aircraft engineering staff have had random blood/alcohol testing for a few years now. In my field (North Sea helicopters) this was mostly brought into force in response to customers (oil companies) demands.

The testing is very expensive and not carried out that often. We have had positive tests on about 2 guys to my knowledge, but the thought of the test may be enough to have the desired effect on the behaviour of the workforce.

One area of concern is the myriad of chemicals that engineers come into contact with. The testers insist on a full detailed list of possible contaminants of a subjects' system, some of which can be introduced by contact. These lists can be very long.

Flying Lawyer

27th Dec 2004, 23:51

Good to see we've got back on track over the past few days. :ok:

dicksynormous
People have very different opinions/theories about the role/job description of security-screeners, but no-one has produced any facts. However, it doesn't really matter. What matters is people now know there is a real risk of being reported, whatever the motives of the person who reports. (There is reason to suspect the LHR security man had a personal grudge but not, as far as I know, the driver in the Manchester case, and the fact is both pilots were found to be over the limit.)
You're right that someone with a grudge can do a lot of damage to an innocent person, but I don't think there's a solution to that problem because the police can't just ignore reports.

I agree there's a very real danger of publicity damaging the reputation of someone who's innocent (even if the report is made in good faith) but, unfortunately, I don't think there's any way of preventing it. The police are notorious for giving tips to the press 'off the record', and police press departments sometimes issue press releases. I think it's outrageous, but the fact is it happens. Even if subsequent analysis of the blood sample shows someone was innocent, the fact that he/she was arrested will almost certainly be in the press/media within hours. I agree it's unfair and obviously damaging, but I doubt if it will change.

Hobie just about sums it up - ”it is (and has to be) a different world today.”

Fact: Like it or not, the days when being fit to fly was enough to stay out of trouble are over, probably for ever.
Now, if you’re found with even a tiny amount of alcohol in your system you will be prosecuted – even if the amount is so small it couldn’t possibly impair your ability to operate. Like it or not, that's what Parliament has decided.

Fact: For all practical purposes, the legal limit is effectively no alcohol at all.
Should the limit be the same as for drivers? I don't know, but I doubt if it will ever be changed.

Fact: There’s no meaningful chart which can predict a future alcohol level after a period of drinking.
Individuals absorb and excrete alcohol at very different rates, depending on various factors including sex (as in gender, not how often or how recently), body weight, alcohol tolerance, whether we’ve eaten and when.

Fact: Anyone prosecuted is likely to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Parliament intended appropriate cases to be dealt with by the magistrates where the maximum penalty is a fine, but both cases so far have been sent to the Crown Court. That may change with time. (If it’s a contested case, I’d strongly recommend choosing trial by judge and jury, but I suspect most cases will be guilty pleas.)

Fact: Both pilots prosecuted to date have been sent to prison.
It appears from those two cases that anyone over the limit, even by a small amount (eg the Manchester pilot), is likely to end up in prison . Whether or not that’s too harsh (I think it is), work on that basis unless/until a different sentencing pattern emerges.

Is it worth taking a chance? The answer, at least IMHO, is definitely not – there’s too much to lose.
Remember that both the LHR and Manchester pilots were breath-tested because they'd been reported. In the Manchester case, by the crew’s driver; in the LHR case, by a security screener at the Crew gate.
Whatever views may be held about people who report others, the fact is there’s a real risk it could happen again.

And not only by security men or drivers - what about your crew? If you’ve been drinking heavily/late in front of the rest of the crew, are you confident there’s no-one who might report you? They could have a variety of motives ranging from a genuine concern for flight safety through resentment of you personally because of some previous unrelated incident to (if you're a pilot) a chip on their shoulder about flight crew in general. Is it worth taking a chance?

Attitudes to drinking and driving have changed significantly over the years, and the change has already begun in aviation.
Remember when the breathalyser was first introduced? Some people used to boast about how they drove home totally plastered and knew some route where there were unlikely to be stopped by the police. They, and most of their audience, thought it was funny. Now, people who drive while drunk rarely boast about it because they know most people think it’s irresponsible not amusing.

Being aware of the risks of being over the limit unintentionally is sensible. Trying to calculate the most you can drink and still be legal is IMHO not only the wrong attitude but just too risky.
Leaving 24 hours between bottle and throttle after anything more than a couple of drinks with food may strike some as too cautious, but look at it in context: Balance the pleasure you’ll get from the extra drinks against the effect on you (and your family) if you lost your job, add the almost certainty of being sent to prison if you’re caught, and then ask yourself if it's too cautious.

Bern Oulli
As far as I know, the 20 mg limit was a policy decision without any reference to any research about the effects of alcohol at altitude. As I understand it, the only reason the limit wasn’t set at zero was to allow for the very small amounts of alcohol our bodies can produce. Perhaps a medic or scientist will tell us if there's been any research and, if so, the results. Interesting point.

Stagn8
There's no equivalent procedure for lawyers, doctors or security screeners. The emphasis has always been on transport - but I see your point.

facsimile

28th Dec 2004, 08:22

Flying Lawyer,

My life has changed, off Christmas day, standby 26th, 27th, 28th. Two glasses of wine with lunch thats all, completely over the top but thats the way it is, better to see the writing on the wall than the bars on the door.

Thanks for your unbiased views on the subject.

Tandemrotor

28th Dec 2004, 13:00

Flying Lawyer

I always read your posts with great interest, and learn a lot from them. Thank you.

As far as the 20 mg limit is concerned, I believe you are correct in as much as, it was a policy decision based not on ANY scientific research, regarding human performance (I believe alcohol is still a banned substance under the terms of the International Olympic Committee, since in some situations, and in small quantities, it can serve to OPTIMISE fine motor skills, such as those demonstrated in shooting!)

As I understand it, 20 mg was a compromise between the 'machismo' of politicians, who would have been perfectly happy to mandate, a zero rating (whilst pickling themselves in the commons bar!)

And the fact that current technology, will only accurately measure blood alcohol levels down to 20 mg.

As a 'sobering' (excuse the pun!) thought, I have heard rumours of teetotallers, who produce background alcohol levels above 20 mg!

Finally, if such a limit cannot be justified on the basis of degrading my performance, is it an infringement of my human rights?

Boeingman

28th Dec 2004, 15:18

I don't think we can blame the politicians for the 20mg limit. I believe HMG took that figure to bring UK law in line with JARs.

Tandemrotor

28th Dec 2004, 15:26

Think I meant politicians (policy makers) in the general, international, sense. Though I accept the Commons reference is quite specific!

Chimbu chuckles

28th Dec 2004, 15:54

Flying lawyer I heard recently that under British Law once a person has 'paid his debt to society' it is deemed innappropriate to punish them further...and on that basis CAA must reinstate Chas' ATPL.

True or wishfull thinking?

Had more than a few drinks with him in the past...I'd like to think it's lesson learned.

RAT 5

29th Dec 2004, 13:27

I find the whole matter quite disturbing, for the following reasons.

Firstly, nothing can condone anyone who puts an a/c or peoples' lives at risk through use of alchohol, and I would speculate that those who might cross the line do so without malice and form a miniscule % of the profession. Is this a sledge hammer to crack a nut?

1. This law has been imposed, it would seem, without any consultation with the parties involved, i.e. the pilot unions. Why not? Surely anything that effects the working conditions of a whole profession should have included both sides in the discussions. Indeeed the unions should have insisted on it. And it would also seem very little medical consultation was taken.

2. Most similar laws, to my best knowledge, are clear about when you cross the line. i.e. one is aware at all times which side of the line one is on. In this case, not so. as has been said previously, the line is a scientific number, but its threshold is uncertain and will be different for different people, and even the same person under differing circumstances. Cars are provided with speedometers, a/c with altimeters. These alert us to limits constantly. They are standard issue. Should we not now be issued with a meter capable of alerting us to the limit, or are we obliged to purchase one ourselves? Either way, the law was introduced without any advice how we can identify the line. Is that responsible?

3. Without expressing any opinion on drinking for pleasure, it is obvious many people do, especially with a meal. It has really changed the meaning of a Day Off if 24 hours is the only insurance, and even that might be a guess. The requested Day Off for e.g. a wedding or birthday party may, for some, be not as festive as it once was. It is easy to say that this limit of 20mg is a good thing. Question is, do we know that it is necessary, or would 40mg or 60mg have been good enough? And if the higher figures would have achieved the desired result, will the current limit ever change? Will there be a review of this legislation?

4. It is said that 20mg was decided by HMG to bring us in line with JARS. I've always been told that JARS have no legal standing,but are only recommendations, and therefore are guidelines which nations can adopt or not. Blank adoption of these limits without research and consultation smacks of laziness at best and deriliction of duty to ones own at worst. (FTLs next.)

The future:
In one major European country they treat drink driving thus. If caught frequently with minor levels of excess, or once with high excess, you lose the licence for 12 months at least. An analysis of your blood is done. I'm told they can tell, not only the A) alchohol content at present, but also your use of alchohol over the past B) short & C) medium time periods. During your penalty period medical counselling is given and it is recommended to have periodic checks to ensure samples B) & C) are reducing. At the end of the penalty period you have to apply for the return of your licence. Then a further blood analysis is taken. If samples B) & C) show that you are still using alchohol outside the prescribed limits you may not get it back.
How soon before our medicals include such tests? I was once told by a medical centre that you could be 100% sober for the medical, but they could analyse if you were over using alcohol, if they wanted to. No drinking 24 hours before flying may get you below 20mg, but may not mean you are clean completely.
I wonder if this legislation is the thin end of a very large wedge which we have yet to appreciate.
Given the rosters of some crews, was it really the intention of our elected representatives to turn flying into an almost T'Total profession? Is the same limit applied to other public transport workers? And if not, why not?

four_two

29th Dec 2004, 20:33

Chimbu chuckles,
Flying lawyer I heard recently that under British Law once a person has 'paid his debt to society' it is deemed innappropriate to punish them further...and on that basis CAA must reinstate Chas' ATPL.

True or wishfull thinking?
As you can see I'm not Flying Lawyer -or any kind of lawyer, but perhaps you might be thinking of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? You'd have to search for it yourself to get the nitty gritty of it, but I think that it means some convictions can be "spent" after a certain time.

fireflybob

29th Dec 2004, 20:50

Much emphasis is now placed on alcohol but what about operating when not 100% fit?

Yes I realise the legislation says that we must be fit to operate but has any research been done into the effect on flying judgement and performance when, for example, suffering from a cold?

I am not currently employed in aviation but I am in a safety critical job in Transport. I am currently off sick due to a bout of flu. When I went sick there was the odd muttering about whether there were enough relief personnel to cover - surely this type of "intimidation" to work when not fit is just as bad as flying when marginally over the limit?

ILS 119.5

30th Dec 2004, 20:14

Just been talking to my GP about alchohol levels.
The aviation profession (the ones under the new law) will now have to watch which aftershave is used, which toothpaste and mouthwash is used, and the food they eat. All these products contain alchohol which could take them over the limit.
Scenario1: Captain lands at destination and prepares for next sector, eats beef and ale pie for dinner, then goes to get ready for flight, brushes teeth, has a mouthwash and puts on aftershave. The Captain is now over the limit. This is due to the natural production of alchohol by the body plus the extra alchohol additives from normal life. This Captain has not had a drink, but over the limit.
Scenario2: Captain orders his in flight meal. Is there any alchohol used in preparation for the meal? If so then why is this not being looked at?
As aviation professionals we are being too highly scrutinised.
From now on, before a flight, do not brush your teeth, do not eat food, do not use a mouthwash and do not put aftershave on. If you do you could be over the limit

Astrodome

30th Dec 2004, 21:47

I have worked in the Railway Industry for many years, and for the last ten or so we have had a strict Alcohol & Drugs Policy.

Similar comments to yours were passed when British Rail was introducing the Policy.

A few comments regarding your post.

Firstly, whilst I cannot comment authoritively on breath testing, my understanding of scenarios likely to register a 'positive' test result do not include the oft stated alcoholic mouthwash, or the Steak and Ale Pie tale.

I guess it is likely that if you undertook a breath test immediately after washing your mouth out you MAY possibly bring about a positive result, however that would be short lived as the alcohol within your mouth would rapidly disappate.

I am sure that the Police would undertake a second test somewhat later, which would then clearly be negative.

I am not sure whether the breath test result in the Police station can be admitted as evidence in a prosecution or whether a blood/urine test is done. I am sure those with the knowledge will provide the answer. Thank you in advance.

RAT 5 asked Is the same limit applied to other public transport workers? And if not, why not? Well I can confirm that for Railway staff deemed as 'Safety Critical' (normally those whose direct actions can impact upon the safety of staff and passengers/others) the limit is 40 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood for INTERNAL INDUSTRY purposes, and 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and above for Police purposes.

My understanding of the reason for the equivalent of 40mg is that this is the level well above which 'false' positives may be experienced.

A person involved in a sufficiently 'serious' incident may well be tested (hopefully) by the British Transport Police and may be found to be below the legal level but subsequently found to have been over the Railway limit.

For the purposes of demonstration, it is generally accepted that 40mg equates to two units of low strength beer (1 pint) or two glasses of average strength wine.

Railway staff are counselled never to drink in the twelve hours preceeding duty and NEVER to report for duty less than eight hours after drinking.

We are guided broadly as to how to make a GENERAL calculation as to our alcohol level, but as all the trainers/instructors will say, if you need to calculate the level of alcohol in your body prior to reporting for duty then you definitely have a problem and shouldn't be reporting for duty.

Testing is undertaken by the provision of urine samples, taken and managed under 'chain of custody' arrangements.

Breath testing is carried out as a quick check, the accurate result is the urine test. To fail the breath test one would have to be pretty well close towards the legal limit as the breath equivalent of 40mg is set generously high in order to give the initial benefit of the doubt.

This debate has gone on for many months now in various different posts.

Frankly I am astounded at the way the air transportation Industry appears to have seriously mishandled both the management of the Policy and the education (in its nicest sense) of its personnel.

I see the same worries and criticism/concerns coming up here time and time again. I am sure that most if not all would be easily dealt with, and people a lot more re-assured, if the Air Trainsport Industry senior management got its collective act together properly and issued proper and cogent policies and procedures that are easily understood and accepted by all parties.

Maybe I am wrong, but the comments made on here certainly point to a serious lack of understanding of the Policy.

FInally, at risk of offending, if you reach the situation where it is necessary for you to test yourself for your alcohol levels before you report for duty then I think that is the time that you need to stand back and take a long hard view of yourself as an individual, and assess your personal situation, either subsequently with or without professional support.

Joyce Tick

30th Dec 2004, 22:17

Oh God - this is boring.. just don't drink and drive, or fly. Then there would be no need for these mindless, aimless, posts...

ILS 119.5

30th Dec 2004, 23:27

Not worth doing the job anymore, it's ruining one's social life. As I said in a previous post, be a plumber, have a couple of beers after work and earn loads of money. You only live once, and you are dead for a long time. You must thank somebody that you were not in Sri Lanka over the last few days, my mate was and has not been seen yet. Basically, there are more things in life than being subjected to ridiculous laws, implemented by people who do not know the business.
I am leaving my flying job with 10K plus hours, worked for the CAA as an ATCO previous and now just hacked off. What am I going to do?
Rgds ILS 119.5

UAE Camel

31st Dec 2004, 07:46

Their seems to be a Kind Of Hush from the Abode Of Peace on this one. Anyone care to comment on the care he received from the airline.
Should it have been allowed to get this far?

RAT 5

31st Dec 2004, 10:44

Astrodome,

Many thanks for a clear and informative reply. Perhaps J.T. could follow your lead.

Now: I agree that the whole issue has been mishandled so incompentently. It beggars belief, especially considering the industry we are talking about. Where everything is measured and operated to limits, here is a critical area, when workers' livelyhoods are at stake, where it is airey fairey. Amazing.

I agree with the sentiment that if you have a doubt about your fitness to fly, there maybe a deeper problem that needs addressing. However, if you are in doubt what are your options? There is a blank space here. Should crew rooms have breath-test machines? Should crews have their own? But where do you buy one that is certified? And if you do use that to check yourself, and prove OK, but subsequently at an airport where random checks may apply, you may fall foul of the 'official' tester. Would you have a right to sue the provider of your personal equipment?
Is this limit of 20mg worldwide? Where are its areas of implication? Considering the consequences of this extremly low limit the lack of information and guidance on the whole matter is deplorable.
It does seem an inconsistancy that you could be driven to work, safely in the opinion of rosters, along the busy rush hour roads, for perhaps 3 hours, by a taxi driver who has 400% legally more alcohol in their blood than you, while in control of a rapidly moving hand controlled vehicle in close formation with other similarly 'impaired' road users. This is deemed OK. But for you, under the same or 50% of that limit, to take an autopilot controlled a/c into the relatively empty sky is deemed unsafe.
Have all JAA states adopted this limit? And what about the non-JAA states?
And if the governments have introduced this limit so easily without consultation and balancing discussion, what would happen if they decided that random testing should became the norm?
What is the ECA's, if it still exisits, opinion on this? Surely this is a matter for which unions exist? To discuss such matters.
It's a real buggar's muddle.

fireflybob

31st Dec 2004, 12:22

I think the essence of much of this thread is that of "trust" or (sadly) perhaps lack of it.

In the "olden days" aircraft commanders were much revered people and their word was final. Much of that has changed due to pressures such as the media headlines ("Drunk Pilot Pulled Over etc...), the fact that air travel has become "routine" and that, well its all automatic now anyway, isnt it, - all those pilots do is push a few buttons and command salaries of at least Â£100,000 per annum etc.

We all know that 99% of aircrew go about their tasks in a highly responsible manner and would never mix alcohol with going on a flying duty.

It seems that our legislators and politicians do not feel it is necessary to consult with pilots, witness the 20 mg limit and also "harmonisation" of FTL across Europe.

I have said it before but will say it again - the ONLY people who understand the pilots job are pilots!! We must spend much more time educating the politicians but I suspect this will be a lengthy process since a major hallmark of the current UK government is not to listen to the people over which it governs.

Astrodome

31st Dec 2004, 19:41

An interesting view.

When I take a flight, I prefer that the flight deck crew be physically and mentally fit to undertake their alloted duties.

I have no doubt that as you say 99% are.

That leaves us to (say) the 1%

Now of those 1% a number will perhaps be OK to fly but may be technically over the specified limit, some will definitely be well above the limit, and I am sure that at least 1 of those 1% will be technically 'drunk'.

I cannot put numbers to those percentages, however I am sure that the aviation experts can and no doubt will.

A number of posters have effectively said that they don't agree with the drug and alcohol legislation as Pilots are capable of determining their own fitness to fly.

That may well be so.

Let me pose this question.

If you travel by train exactly how safe would you feel if the track your train was due to travel over at 125 mph had been inspected by me, or the points certified as safe, or work carried out on the signalling by me or my colleagues.

As responsible professionally trained and competent people with all manner of checks and counter-checks on our performance no doubt you would be perfectly happy. Indeed you have to be because no-one else can do this type of job without an awful lot of training and experience.

If I or one of my colleagues restores a railway line to traffic and/or certifies signalling or other equipment critical to the safety we are making a legal statement and accepting the legal consequences of an error in our work, our checking or our inspection. Sometimes we will have to rely upon our professional judgement, always a very dificult thing to explain to certain classes of the bewigged buffoonery.

Historically very very few railway accidents were caused by critical staff being drunk, similar I guess to airline pilots.

Exactly HOW safe would you now feel if we were to be over the alcohol limit when we undertook such safety critical activities?. This bearing in mind that we are professional personnel capable of judging our own fitness?

Rat 5 Thank you !

fireflybob

1st Jan 2005, 13:23

Astrodome, Thanks.

I was not meaning to say that aircrew should not be subject to screening for alcohol or drugs - in fact it has surprised me how long it has taken for aviation to catch up with other sectors such as the railways in this regard.

I think what I am questioning is the actual limit of 20mg. Who has decided this figure is a benchmark? Laws are surely designed to protect society in general but I feel that the politicians (who have never been pilots) do not really understand the issues - this seems to borne out by the cavalier attitude with respect to FTL within Europe etc. - they are not listening to what we (the pilots) are trying to tell them!

One has to ask the question just how many aircraft accidents/incidents have been caused by aircrew having excess alcohol in their system?

I would like to stress that I am NOT in favour of mixing (!) alcohol with any safety critical task and I AM in favour of screening but it seems to me that too much attention is being put into this area to the detriment of making significant safety improvements in other areas such as fatigue etc.

Astrodome

1st Jan 2005, 18:33

Thanks, I was obviously misunderstanding your post, so thanks for explaining.

Re the 20 mg limit. Yes I do agree it does seem to be rather arbitrary and I am reliably informed that even teetotallers in the right circumstances can give alcohol trace readings of this level.

I wonder how readily such a limit will bring about 'false positives' and what way the aviation industry will respond when for example a non-drinking person is screened alcohol positive?

Something that has been discovered in the Railway testing system is that Hamburger rolls with sesame seeds will trip a positive drug screen (I seem to recall that it reports Heroin).

It came to light when a train Driver tested positive.

There was clearly absolutely no reason why this guy should have tested positive, however the Policy states that immediate dismissal must follow.

Fortunately British Rail being a good employer recognised that this particular guy would not have been a drug user and deemed the test result 'suspect' and 'stayed' any action.

British Rail scientific services undertook an awful lot of detective work and established that the sesame seeds had brought about the 'false positive'.

It was subsequently established that the sesame seeds oh a burger meal he had taken for lunch earlier had caused the problem.

Clearly a situation that could have led to the widespread loss of confidence in the system, together with the resultant breakdown of staff relations and morale was handled splendidly, with no upset on anyone's side.

I am not sure if they were ever able to modify the actual screening process, and even today we always make sure we steer clear of hamburger chains prior to an announced drug screen.

Just a thought for you guys !

normal_nigel

2nd Jan 2005, 19:12

119.5

Sad but true.

NN

Spikeyscum

7th Jan 2005, 12:52

The chief executive of a large UK passenger airline apparently believes that one in ten pilots would fail a pre-flight breath test and is keen to bring in random breath testing. Is he right to worry?

Tandemrotor

7th Jan 2005, 13:23

Don't know which chief executive this refers to, but perhaps he is correct.

The limit is set so RIDICULOUSLY low anyone who is very close to stone cold sober could fail!

Of course, 3 or 4 of the 10 may be experiencing a level of FATIGUE towards the end of a working block, that affects their performance FAR more than a miniscule amount of alcohol. But we don't test for that do we!

Oh, and the chief wouldn't like being told he was working his pilots so hard, it was affecting safety!

Joyce Tick

7th Jan 2005, 13:46

Well, you can start your stopwatch and count the seconds before someone brings up the old favorite 'fatigue' again!

I flew for thirty years and never got 'fatigued' - a bit tired sometimes but every working person does at some time or other. I know of no other job, many far more physically demanding than airline flying, where people are so quick to whimper that 'fatigue' word. In fact I think I've only ever heard pilots use it... (civilian pilots, that is)

christn

7th Jan 2005, 14:07

Joyce, like many you confuse the old, respected profession of pilot with the new 'bus driver' job. Fatigue can now be a real problem; you are lucky to have never experienced it!

6000PIC

7th Jan 2005, 14:10

I must add a comment here , re ; "I flew for 30 years and was never fatigued ... "
What an utter and absolute load of bollucks.

Random Electron

7th Jan 2005, 14:39

Joyce Tick fails to mention what type of flying he did for those thirty years.

If it was only the aeroclub's Auster at weekends, well I doubt very much he was ever fatigued.

I would be interested to have him along for an August roster with any IT operator, and see how he feels at the end of it.

ukwannabe

7th Jan 2005, 14:52

Try 90 hours in 14 days solid, no 'days' off just 24 hour periods.....each month. Fatigue yes, exhaustion yes, with average of 7 hour period time changes per sector. Oh for the good old days of an eight hour sector then three days off to polish up the skiing or complete that sailing course! My choice so mustn't grumble....must I?

The Sandman

7th Jan 2005, 14:55

More to the point, I think the statement originally referred to is absolutely ridiculous. No I certainly do not think anywhere near 10% of operating flight crew would fail even the new and amazingly low limits (Probably not even 0.1% given the heightened state of awareness in the industry).

Tho I have to bet that a similar breathalyzer applied to the likes of the individual who made the statement, on their morning drive to work, would likely fail in the vicinity of 25-30%. Think about that oh holy one(s)!

Walk a mile in our shoes...

hobie

7th Jan 2005, 14:55

A senior U.K. Police Chief announced today that he wants the Car Driving limit reduced dramatically because Drivers feel, at the present level, they can have a drink or two and be ok to drive ..... the Chief wants the level reduced to a level that effectively means Car Drivers "can't Drink and Drive" Period!!!

This effectively is the approach the Aviation World seems to be taking

Joyce Tick

7th Jan 2005, 14:57

That's the other thing you can set your watch by: disagree with the 'whinge' party line and you must be a private pilot, a failed airline pilot or management!

No need to be rude , 6000PIC, I freely admit to getting tired, especially towards the end of a second consecutive night flight (yes, I was charter for 15 years, Random) but it was never anything a good sleep didn't cure. Last time I was 'fatigued' was after three days without sleep at a military winter survival school in -20C and a tent!

The Sandman

7th Jan 2005, 14:58

Probably the same idiot who was adamantly in favor of "zero tolerance" policing regards the speed limit issue - 1 mph over the limit and you're a criminal. Get real or get a life -preferably in some cozy little dictatorship where your likes can comfortably exercise your delusional needs for power/control.

ILS 119.5

7th Jan 2005, 15:37

I do not agree with random breath testing but I do agree with compulsory breath testing. This should be provided by the employer. As much as any Pilot or Controller can say that they have not had a drink, this does not say that they do not have alchohol in their blood. As members have said before the limit is too low. On a monetary basis it is far more better for a company to stop someone working for one day rather than losing them completely. The cost to replace a Pilot or an ATCO would be loss of one days work plus overtime compared to training someone or advertising and training the right person. The Aviation Profession is in a bad state at the moment due to the belittleing of qualified personnel. If laws are broken then fine, but as professionals we and our management should ensure that the laws are not broken. At the moment anyone can report any licenced professional for smelling of alchohol, not forgetting that the reporter might of had eight pints the previous night and working with the mate they had been out with. They might also have a grudge against a certain person passing through security.
What about this scenario. One of the MOD Security suspects that he has smelt alchohol on a few members of staff passing through the gates at NERC. Are they controllers, assistants, tels, admin. Who knows?. The report is made to the local constabulary. Next minute the Police arrive, the only people they can test are the controllers, where do they start?, which sector?, who looks drunk? I know, start with the watch manager and work down. Try to test a Daventry controller whilst busy. Who is endangering life then?
I am not condoning drinking and working but saying that firstly the limit is too low. Secondly as previousely said that if every controller was breath tested at NERC (sorry,not just NERC but every other unit in the country), then the results under the present limit would be frightening. If 10% of the working pilots and controllers proved positive on one day then the country would come to a standstill for air travel. Thirdly, the financial affects on the Aviation industry would be too much to handle, for airlines and airports.
It is far more easier for companies (financially) to introduce compulsory testing, rather than losing staff.
What if someone at work has a grudge against you? They accuse you of smelling of alchohol and then report you? I was always taught that the Aviation Industry worked as a team. Not anymore.
I hope someone tries in the future to realise that our industry is a TEAM industry. My god if we were at war then many of the backstabbers would not be around. We should look after each other and not try to trip each other up.
You should realise that in 100 years we will all be dead. Enjoy your life, be friends and help everyone. Please do not try and ruin other people. Life is all about working as a team.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

bjcc

7th Jan 2005, 15:38

The Sandman

Can't disagree the majority of senior police officers are idiots.
However, is there a problem with lowering the drink drive limits? It may well get rid of the uncertainty.
1 mph over the limit? I think you live in a different world on that....
but lets see you back it up with some fact...

119.5

'MOD security at Nerc'. Have you ever been there?

If you mean Group 4 security think that someones been drinking when they drive in then they can pass the VRM to Hampshires finest. So why would the local old bill breath test everyone? Just driving in the gate does not constitute an offence, unless you mean drink driving. In which case it matters not what the drivers occupation is. They can still be breath tested.

As for breath testing someone sat on DTY.....I really don't think so do you? Common sense would dictate your mythical controller being taken off radar first. In exactly the same way as Police wouldn't test a driver while they were still driving.

You may be right about the BAC limits, you may be wrong. I don't see the Medical Pofession howling about it being wrong. The CAA were the people that had the legislation introduced, try asking them to justify it.

The legislation you are on about does not just apply to people who are 'grassed', a breath test can be required after an incident, or an accident.

Tandemrotor

7th Jan 2005, 18:21

Joyce Tick told us he had flown for 30 years, achieving 6000 hrs, and never felt fatigued!

Perhaps today's pilots feel fatigued because they can knock up the same total in a quarter of the time it took HIM.

To be fair, I think there IS a difference between tiredness (common more on shorthaul) and fatigue (perhaps more common on longhaul)

However, the point I was trying to make was this:

Where is the science that says flying with 20mg of alcohol in the blood has a more detrimental effect on performance, than the newly proposed EU FTL scheme.

I, along with many, suspect the evidence simply does not exist.

So the question is, how was this (extremely low) figure, arrived at?

Joyce; it's over to you.

ILS 119.5

7th Jan 2005, 23:05

Sorry have never worked at NERC and forgot it is Civvy only. When I was at LATCC then due to it being a military base then MOD Police were there.
Just driving past the gate does not constitute an offence nor does passing through security screening constitute an offence but that is what people are being reported for.
If a controller was thought to be over the limit whilst working then that person should be relieved immedietly, regardless. If a pilot reported for work smelling of drink they should not be allowed to work. If a Police Constable turns up for work and believes to be over the drink/drive limit they do not drive.
My point is, if a person suspects that someone smells of drink but is not sure who they are what do they do? I know report it. Who then is tested in a large unit? If everybody is not tested then negligence is on the Police. If the unit is not shut down immedietly due to the large scale of the investigation, and an accident happens due to someone being under the influence then it will be negligence due to the police. If the Police fail to act on any report and an accident happens then it will be due to their negligence. Just you try and substantiate any report followed by an accident an no investigation.
This whole situation is a great big grey can of worms. It will be ripped apart for the next few years until some noddy finally realises about our industry. Until then I am glad to be working my notice period and then bomb about outside CAS and keep a good look out. Nobody will test me, not that I am bothered, but in a LR45 I can go anywhere.
Rgds
ILS 119.5